IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1128 


14 


M 

12.2 


v^  llllitt      _ 

'^  m  ^ 

12.0 


111= 

U    III  1.6 


A" 

o 

% 


% 


w"^- 


h»  ^   %,     '\ 


'? 


PhotoQBphic 

Scmces 

Corporation 


A 


,\ 


s 


\ 


w 


\ 


^■^ 


f» 


c> 


"«?) 


V 


23  WE£1  MAtN  STREET 

»'EBSTER,N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


^ 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The 
to  th 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographicaliy  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 


D 


D 


D 
D 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommagde 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur6e  et/ou  pelliculde 


I      I    Cover  title  missing/ 


D 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


r~~|    Coloured  maps/ 


Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  Mure  serr^e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout6es 
tors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  filmdes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppldmentaires; 


L'lnst'tut  a  microfilm^  le  meilteur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modifi«;ation  dans  la  mdthode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu6s  ci-dessous. 

□    Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

□    Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagies 

□    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restauries  et/ou  pelliculdes 

I    ~V  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
1'^    Pages  ddcolorC^s,  tachetdes  ou  piqu6es 

□    Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d6tach6es 

V^7\    Showthrough/ 
I — I    Transparence 

I      I    Quality  of  print  varies/ 


The 
posf 
of  tl 
filmi 


Orig 

begi 

the 

sion 

othe 

first 

sion 

or  ill 


D 


Quality  indgate  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


The 
shal 
TINI 
whi( 

Map 
dlff< 
entii 
begi 
righ 
reqi 
met 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possibfe  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6ti  filmies  d  nouveau  de  facon  d 
obtenir  la  meillaure  image  possibi.^i. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film^  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


12X 


16X 


20X 


26X 


30X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thank» 
to  the  generosity  of: 


L'exemplaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grdce  d  la 
g6n6ro8it6  de: 


Archives  of  Ontario  Library 


Archives  of  Ontario  Library 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmaye. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimde  sont  film6s  en  commen^ant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  lerminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaire;i* 
originaux  sont  filmds  en  commengant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^^>  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaftra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbols  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE  ",  le 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
film6s  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  3tre 
rsproduit  en  un  seul  clich6,  il  est  filmd  d  partir 
de  Tangle  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  n6cessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

,  BiBn^f 


/?^^ 


AN 


EXAMINATION 


or 


THE  CONDUGJ^,      >?■'% 


I) 


/I 


OP  I 

.       ■  I 
GREAT  BRITAIN, 


RESPFXTING  NEUTRALS, 

SIACE  THE  YEAR  1791. 


SECOND  EDITION  WITH  CORRECTIONS  AND  AMENDMENTS. 


"The  ardour,  with  which  the  British  ministry  embarked  in  the  war 
♦'against   i  ranee,  was  presently  manifested  by,  perhaps,  the  most- 
"  extraordinary  proceeding,  that  ever  appeared  upon  record  ;  and  tins 
<'  was  to  force  the  neutral  powers  to  unite  in  the  combination  to  crush 
"  the  French  republic."  [British  annual  register  of  1793,} 


BOSTON : 

PRINTKB  BV  OLIVER  AND  MUNROE,  NO  78,  STATE-STREET. 

1808. 


/     «■ 


....i.-t^  — -s.*' 


jeat 


CON 


AN 
necessary 
than  '*  a  ■ 
of  an  hon 
feet  illun: 
rights  of 
sailing  ui 
both  occj 
than  threi 
land  nor 
able  to  si 
right  of  s 
our  priva 
every  pei 
pertinent 
and  deter 
truth.  I 
lately  caj 
permittee 
ed  bv  t 
otherwise 
'  ain ;  bee 
lar  and  v 
her  office 

*  The  1( 


^.jBummg. ._ — ■ 


AN 


EXAMINATION  (^j 


Y  T  A  R^  A  '^^ 


OF  THE 


CONDUCT  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN, 


SINXE  THE  YEAR  1791,  8cc. 


No.  I. 


AN  enlightened  state  of  the  public  mind  is  no  less 
necessary  to  the  political  morality  of  a  worthy  nation, 
than  '*  a  well  informed  conscience, "^"^  is  to  the  private  virtue 
of  an  honest  individual.  In  this  view,  the  mild  but  per- 
fect illumination,  given  in  a  recent  state  paper*  to  the 
rights  of  our  flag,  in  relation  to  persons  of  all  descriptions 
sailing  under  it,  appears  to  be  of  the  highest  importance 
both  occasional  and  permanent.  With  that  paper  more 
than  three  years  before  them,  neither  the  friends  of  Eng- 
land nor  the  opponents  to  our  administration  have  been 
able  to  shew,  tliat  foreign  navies  can  lawfully  exercise  a 
right  of  search,  as  to  any  but  "  military  enemies"  even  in 
our  private  vessels.  The  public  mind — thus  aided  by 
every  pertinent  light  and  perplexed  by  none,  which  is  not 
pertinent — makes  in  the  present  crisis  a  conscientious 
and  determined  stand  upon  the  noble  ground  of  ascertained 
truth.  It  is  in  vain,  that  some  regret,  that  the  citizens 
lately  captured  on  board  the  frigate  Chesapeake,  were 
permitted  to  go  to"  sea  in  her,  after  they  had  been  demand- 
ed by  the  British.  This,  though  it  may  have  been 
otherwise  intended,  is  an  implied  censure  on  Great  Brit- 
because  it  presumes,  that  her  character  is  so  irregu 


am 


lar  and  violent,  that  it  was  to  have  been  expected,  that 
her  officers  would  attempt  to  seize  our  men,  ^t  a  moment 
*  The  letter  of  Mf.  Madison  to  Mr.  Munroe,  of  January,  1804lj 


MUI 


(     4     ) 

of  peace  in  one  of  our  ships  of  war.  The  rights  of  this 
country  to  the  vohintary  services  of  its  own  ciiizens,  can- 
not bf  suspended  or  destroyed  by  foreign  irregularities. 
—  We  wanted  the  men,  and  the  men  made  their  own  side 
of  the  contract  by  a  vohintary  engagement  in  our  frigate. 
It  is  necessary  to  observe  too,  that  the  riglit  of  our  eiti- 
zens  to  be  employed  in  the  line  of  their  proper  occupa- 
tion, as  mariners,  cannot  be  suspended  or  destroyed  by 
foreign  irregularities.  The  government  hud  oftered  agree- 
ble  employment,  and  the  captured  seamen  had  accepted 
it  of  their  own  accord  British  impressment,  odious  and 
pernicious  as  it  is,  would  be  rend,  red  infinitely  more  so 
if  il  could  deprive  this  country  of  its  right  to  employ  its 
own  pe  ople,  and  if  it  could  deprive  any  class  of  o\ir  peo- 
ple, of  their  right  to  be  so  employed  by  their  native  coun- 
try.  A  few  such  feeble  and  unsound  suggestions,  rekit- 
ing  to  a  single  occasion,  are  the  whole  that  is  opposed  to 
the  mass  of  truth,  reason  and  universal  public  law,  which 
composes  the  state  paper  concerning  impressments.  It 
is  true,  that  the  diplomatic  letter  in  contemplation  was 
•u-ritten  and  published  long  before  the  outrage  on  the 
Chesapooke,  but  its  relation  to  that  case  has  leudered  it  a 
subject  of  the  severest  scrutiny,  by  adversary  minds. 

An  anxious  solicitude  to  promote  the  diffu:  ion  of  simi- 
lar truths,  in  regard  to  neutral  spoliations  and  vexations, 
leads  to  the  present  attempt  to  place  the  conduct  of  Eng- 
land, in  other  respects,  in  the  same  just  light.  It  is  true 
that  the  learning  and  the  strength,  which  ensured  to  our 
rights  on  the  subject  ot  impressment,  an  absolute  demon- 
stration,  are  wanted  here.  But  the  same  anxiety  for  truth 
and  for  justice  to  our  seamen,  our  merchants  and  our 
country,  which  moved  our  minister  '^f  state,  may  operate 
.on  a  citizen,  unequal  to  the  task.  At  all  events,  he  will 
faithfully  contribute  to  the  public  cause,  tlic  mite  he  pos- 
sesses. 

It  is  well  known  to  America  and  I'urope  (for  the  appeal 
is  made  with  confidence  to  the  whole  civilized  world)  that 
this  country,  in  common  \a  ith  other  neutral  states,  has 
l)een  extremely  harrassed  and  injured  by  the  conduct  of 
Great  Britain  in  the  v\  ars,  which  have  been  occasior.cd  by 
the  Freneh  revolutions.     At  the  crisis   of  the   apparent 


.JM- 


( 


) 


matiuity  ol  oui  nc^gociations  with  the  British  government 
in  the  close  of  the  last  year,  these  as^ressi(>n.  had  i  isen  to 
the  most  offensive  and  injurious  height.      I  he  writer  of 
Uiese  pages  does  not  pretend  to   any    o.hcial   information 
(for  he  writes  not  on  tlie  motion  nor  even  vvith  the  privity 
of  any  other  person)  but  he  vemnres  to  adirm  Irom  abnn- 
dant  and  conclusive  cvidnice  before  the  public    that  alter 
tiic  i>)rm,  the  substance,  and  one  of  the  copies  of  the  dij^cst- 
cd  treaty  had  received  the  assent  and  signatures  oi  .Messrs. 
Islonroe  and  Pineknev,  and  in  the  iinal  act   ol   dehvcriPg 
the  British  counterpart,  deliberately  signed  also,  a  written 
note  was  presented  by  their  negociating  mini^.ters,  to  our 
ministers,  purporting  that  though  the  treaty  was  thus  lor- 
mally  signed  and  exchanged,  yet  the  British  government 
would  consider  themselves  as  entitled  to  do  towards  the 
United  States  whatever  we  should  sustain  and  permit  irom 
the  French,  in  consequence  of  their  decree  ot  the  21st  of 
November,  and,  of  course,  of  any  other  such  decrees*.^ 

No  observation  is  intended  to  be  made  here  upon  this 
Briiish  accompaniment  of  a  treaty  matured  and  mutually 
signed  after  the  decree  of  the  2lst  of  November,  was 
known.  That  extraordinary  act  has  happily  met  with  its 
proper  trcatment,-^an  open  stand,— calm,  decorous  intcl- 
ligent  and  firm.  So  far  as  our  country  understands  ard 
considers  the  subject,  it  is  strongly  with  the  government 
on  this  point,  and  that  too  in  the  case  of  many  persons 
eminent  in  the  walks  of  party  opposition. 

The  state  of  mind  displayed  by  the  British  government, 
in  thus  endeavouring  to  draw  us  into  a  situation  of  assent 
to  this  dangerous  and  unwarrantable  attempt  ol  theirs,  and 
the  spirit  of  perseverance  in  >vrong,  they  have  manifested 
in  their  various  orders  of  council  of  January    7tli  and   ot 
other  dates  in  this  year,  have  given  rise  to  an  opinion,  that 
it  would  be  of  the  greatest  public  utility  to   place   betore 
the  nation,  some  of  Tnose  anterior,  succeshive  and  numer- 
ous acts  of  the  British  government,  which  have  illegiti- 
mately, thrown  the  neutral  states  into  situations  of  unpre- 
cedentcd  haidship  and  injustice,  and  which  the  history  ot 
the  British  operations   since    1791,  will   prove   to   have 
brought  on  many  of  those  acts  of  the  French  and  Spanish 
governments,  which  rcseoible  the  decree  of  the  Lmperor 
*  Sec  the  pviblication,  concerning  tlie  proposed  treaty  at  K.  York,  in  Sept. 


I 


•5-«««»tw«««a.«»(#i'»«»'>'¥W^ 


(     6     ) 

of  France  of  the  21st  November.  Indeed,  the  conduct  of 
England  since  the  year  1791,  would,  if  unopposed,  effect 
a  complete  revolution  in  that  wise  and  equitable  govern- 
ment of  independent  states,  which  has  been  happily  secur- 
ed by  the  universal  law  of  nations.— It  is  our  duty,  our  in- 
terest,  and  our  right,  calmly  and  freely  to  examine  tlie  sub- 
ject, that  wc  may  be  prepared  to  determine  on  the  conduct 
we  ought  to  pursue,  in  the  critical  season  before  us. 

In  order  to  bring  the  matters  in  contemplation,  into  a 
clear  and  defined  shape,  we  decently,  but  explicitly  submit 
to  the  whole  world,  the  high  charge,  that  Great  Britain 
'was  the  first  beginner  of  thQ  illegitimate  measures  pursued 
to  embarrass,  spoliate  and  destroy  the  neutral  commerce  of 
the  U.  S.  since  \19l— that  she  adopted  them  so  early,  and 
has  pursued  them  so  constantly,  in  a  degree  so  extreme,  dnd 
in  a  manner  so  unprecedented,  that  she  is  deprived  of  gve- 
ry  pretence,  in  reason  or  under  the  laiu  of  nations,  to  a  right 
of  retaliation,  in  respect  to  her  enemies,  or  as  a  matter, 
which  the  impartiality  of  neutrals  ought  to  permit  her. 

After  explicitly  taking  this  serious  gr<  und,  we  shall  pro- 
ceed with  the  subject,  and  we  shall  first  notice  some  con- 
trary  suggestions,  which  have  been  lieretofore  made,  or 
appear  to  have  been  intended,  by  respectable  persons  m 
our  own  country. 


\\l 


No.  II. 

It  has  been  asserted,  and  was  for  a  time,  believed, 
*'  that  the  government  of  France  has  an  indisputable  title 
to  the  culpable  pre-eminence  of  having  taken  the  lead  in 
"  the  violation  of  neutral  rights ;  the  first  instance,  on 
"the part  of  the  British  government"  (referring  to  their 
order  of  the  8th  of  June,  1793)  "  being  said  to  be  nearly 
"  a  month  posterior  to  the  commencement  of  the  evil  by 
"  France,"  referring  to  the  decree  of  the  French  Conven- 
tion of  9th  of  May  1794,  These  are  the  words,  in  which 
that  charge  was  brought  in  1798,  against  the  French  gov- 
ernment, by  the  writer  of  a  series  of  papers  in  the  Gaz- 
ette of  the  United  States,  entitled,  "  The  Warning,"  and 
signed    "  Americus."     Those   papers  were   manifestly 

wniten  oy   a  person  very  luiuuieiy   imui  mvu.  i^oi.v-. q 

the  transactions  of  our  government,  and  have  been  gener- 


■JM.I..*. 


\\l 


(     7    ) 
allv  so  considered.*     It  is  proposed  to  show  that  he  was 
grLtly  "^*^^^^^^"'   ""^  '^^''  ^''  but  sUghtly  viewed  the 
'^:lt;:^^^ro^o^^r.:^o..  that  a  similar 
way  of  thinking  seems  to  have  existed  even  m  thecxecu. 
tive   branch  of  that  government,  immediately  before  the 
r^ublicatTon  of  -  The  Warning,"  referred  to  above  ;  for, 
Fn  a  roffie-u.l  report,  it  is  observed,  that,  -  It  may  be  pro- 
"pTr  to  remark'  he;e,  that  this  decree  of  ^^-^^ 
fthat  of  the  9th  May,  1793,  mentioned  m  the  next  pic- 
Ceding  sentence)  '«  directing  the  capture  of  neutr^d  vessels 

*<  laden  with  provisions  and  ^^<^f  »"^?X«^^^^"^,f '^r/'^ 
"  preceded  by  one  month  the  order  oi  the  British  govern. 
"  ment"  referring  to  that  of  June  8th,  1793      It  is  true 
thS  there  b  no  dLct   assertion,  that  cither  that  British 
act,  or  that  French  act,  is  the  leading  act  of  violation  com- 
mitted  by  England  or  France  upon  the  neutral  commerce  ; 
S^t  the  pafsa^e  unavoidably  carries  the  idea  to  the  reader 
and  has  occasioned  some,  who  have  not  duly  examined  he 
subject,  to  believe  that   the  report  exhibits  a  proof,  that 
"France"  in  the  language  of  Americus  -  has  really  tak- 
en  the  lead  in  the  violation  of  neutral  rights.'  ^ 

Let  us  examine  the  evidences  we  possess,  with  serious- 
ness,  decency ,  and  that  candor,  which  the  subject  demands. 
There  is  among  the  records  of  the  department  of  state, 
and  in  the  British  and  American  collections  of  state  papers, 
clear  and  positive  evidence,  that  England  had  deliberately 
matured  and  consummated  the  system  of  violatmg  the 
neutral  commerce  above  six  weeks  before  the  French  cle- 
cree  of  the  9th  of  May,  1793,  and  this  too  ui  the  rnost  un- 
preoedcnted  manner.     Our  late  Minister  in  London,  Mr. 
T.  Pickney,  communicated  to  Mr.  Jefferson  then  our  sec- 
retard  of  sllte,  in  his  letter  of  the  5th  July  1793,  that  lord 
Grenvillc   had  explicitly  and  unreservedly  avowed,  that 
the  captures  of  neutral  vessels,  as  directed  by  the  British 
order  of  the  8th  June,  1793,  to  that  end,  were  fully  under- 
stood  by  bot'.  Russia  and  Great  Britam,  to  be  '^^^^^iJ^^ 
intention  of  the  convention  between  them,  which  was  signed 
by  those  two  governments  at  London,  on  the  25th  day  ot 
March,  1793.     From  the  very  extraordinary  nature  ot  that 
*  Written  by  A.  Hamiltors ^  Esquire- 


m 


tia»jia«^*l»a»«!«WI^I«^ 


(     8     ) 

convention  between  "Russiii  and  Grciit  Britain,  from   tlie 
distance  between  Petersburg;  and  London,  and  iVoni  ilus 
aeasonof  the  year,it  cannot  be  doubled,  tluitrl>is  important 
contract,  which  waH  mutually  si}rned  on  the  ifnh  of  March, 
179.],  must  have  been  originated  in  the  autumn  of   179-2, 
by  the  late  Russian  Kmpress  and  the  British  kins;.   h\  the 
correspondence    between  our  secretary   of  State  and  our 
Minislei  in  Loudon,  wc  do  not  perceive  the  least  suj^t^es- 
tion  of  the  influence,  as  an  example,  of  die  French  decree 
of  the  9di  of  M^y,  1793.     Such  a  plea  could  not  indeed 
possibly  be  made  by  lord  Grenville,  who  knew  and  uvoxv- 
ed,  that  Great  b.itain  had  previously  bound  herself  by  a 
solemn  compact  with  Uussia,  to  observe  the  vel-y  con- 
duct,  of  which  the  neutral  powers  complained.     Lord 
Grenville,    and  the   British   minister  then  resident   here 
[Mr.  Ihimmond]  have,  in  their  written  communications, 
uniformly  pretended,  that  it  was  regular  and  right,  under 
the  law  of  nations.     Tiic  British  t^overnment,  no  doubt, 
gave  their  prior  orders  to  the  commanders  of  their  ships, 
as  soon  as  the  convention  with  Russia  was  signed,  that  is, 
in  March,  179.3  ;  and  it  is  tol)e  presumed,  that  the  known 
detentions  of  neutral  vessels  in  the  British  ports,  so  early 
as  the  autumn  of  1792,  and  the  captures  of  neutral  ves- 
sels, which  the  French  government  assign  as  the  justify- 
ing reasons  of  their  act  of  May,   1793,  were  made  in 
consequence  of  the  negociation  and  completion  of  that 
convention  and  of  those  first  orders.     In  confirmation  of 
these  suggestions,  we  find  that  the  French  minister,  M. 
Chauveliii,  in  London,  strongly  remonstrated,  in  Novem- 
ber 1792,  against  the  detention  of  neutral  vessels  in  the 
British  ports",  laden  with  grain,  as  contrary  to  the  law  of 
nations,  and  to  the  existing  treaty  of  1786,  nay,  even  as 
contrary  to  the  statutes  of  England.     So  unlawful  was 
this  conduct,  that  the  British  ministry  actually  applied  for 
an  indemnity  to  parliament.     These  early  facts,  followed 
by  the  captures  of  neutral  vessels,  after  the  French  min- 
ister  was  ordered  from  London,  on  the  24th  of  January, 
1793,  and  prior  to  the  Russian  convention  of  March  25, 
1793,  with  the  avowed  design  and  meaning  of  that  con-, 
vention  betwf-en  Kngland  and  Russia,manifest  and  establish 
a  new  and  pernicious  system,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 


\\  I 


(  »  ) 

of  May  17yJ.      1 1'*-        rarlicat  of  these  measures  of  the 
score  aryostaa-  mude  pretensions  to  a  r,^A<  to  adopt  such 

t^  %trtpri^<^^-*/e;L  what.5a5.nert,. 

Frenel".  deerce  ol'  May.  1793,  can  have  produced  th.s  eon- 

''"S.rtaSly  Fra.:ce"ietcd  an  unwarrantable  part  towards 
.„  W  ?hc  ortter  neutrals,  in  her  decree  of  May,  1793 
But1v,vine  an  immense  population  to  support,  a..d  with 
But  having  an  r  r  ijiers  to  feed,  almost 

^rn&shri-  on  *c  'and  side,  by  the  hostile  Neth- 
completely  Shut .  .  expecting  no  gra.n 

f       ^L  smrmfi/hives  of  Switzerland,   and   closely 
from  the  s"»™    S "  j^      ;     Sweden,t  Hol- 

watehed  ^J  *%'"™'torwS.l,  and  the  Italian  states,  her 
and,  >='"f'»"^;/P;"XSons  rf a  ruinous  and  distr.aing 
us:  .«"''>«"*l^PP;7b"eZukkened  by  the  Instances  of 

in  November,  1792,  upon  the  endency^ol  the^«^^^^^^,.^^  ^^  .j,,  i,;„gi„,, 

iuce  famine  oi  Uie  icur  ui  it  m  x . 

15 


(     10     ) 

S4>tutely  mufictcnt  to  justify  France,  they  afford  a  degree 
md  kind  of  extenuation  for  her  Jotlowing  the  empress  ot 
Russia  and  England,  which  those  powers  cannot  plead  tor 
their  prior  and  leading  acts,  and  for  the  captures  and  dc- 
tcntior.s  anterior  to  and  daring  the  pre-existence  of  their 
convention.      That  we  considered  the  conduce  of  Great 
Britain  at  the  time,  as  under  all  circumstances,  by  much 
the  most  exceptionable,  must  appear  certam  from  our 
sending  a  special  envoy  to  London  in  1794,  and  not  send- 
ina-  one  to  Paris.     This  observation  appears  the  more  na- 
tural and  reasonable,  because  we  had  resident  munsters, 
in  1793  and    1794,   at  both  places:    Mr.  G.  Morris  m 
France,  and  Mr  T.  Pinckney  in  London.     The  object  o. 
these  papers  is  not  at  all  to  justify  the  spoliations  commit- 
ted  by  France,  nor  is  it  wished  even  to  extenua'ie  them  in 
the  smdlest  dep;ree.     So  far  as  any  comparative  ideas  have 
been  admitted  into  this  investigation,  it  is  merely  because 
they  unavoidably  arise  in  a  free  discussion  ot  the  subject. 
To  ascertain,  that  any  particular  measure  is  not  of  a  cer- 
tain  aiU^[?ed  nature,  it  m;iy  be  useful  and  necessary,  to  de- 
tern»ine  of  what  nature  it  really  is.     If  fears  of  famine,  and 
of  r  concert  to  produce  it,  both  which  now  appear  to  have 
be-n  well  i^rounded  ;  and  if  the  influence  of  Lnglish  and 
Russian  examples,  have  led  France  to  adopt  a  culpable  and 
uniust  measure  towards  us  ;  still  it  appears  true,  and  it  is 
imoortant  in  thi:  investigation,  that  there  really  is  a  num- 
bed of  most  serious  and  premJrditated  instances  of  the  evil 
on  the  part  of  Greu  Britain,  prior  to  the  French  decree  ot 
May,  1795.— The  contracting  parties,  England  and  Kua- 
sia,  bound  themselves  to  use  all  possible  means  with  the 
neutral  states  to  prevent  their  accustomed  and  lawful  corn- 
mi.. -^^ter,  Lord  Aukiand,  to  the  Dutch  governmcni  (April  5, 1793)  holds 
u,,  tuu.ii.e.  as  ii  calamity  about  U)  afflict  1  r^ce,  he  knowi.-,  mat  U'.c  Kus- 
6ian  conveutio:>  liad  been  s.gned  in  London,  eleven  aa)s  l)efore  :  and    lie 
emm-cssol  Russia,  m  July,    1793,  inloimed  il.e  court  ot  Sweden,  tluvr. 
inc\m^qumc,ofanarrungfmnU  madcvA"',  hi.  Dritanmc  mujei^tij,  she  had 
eivn  lawless  '"^  nistpuctions  to  the  .:()iuniandei-s  of  her  tkct,  to  slop  an. 
»^conipc.  all   neutral  slups,  bound  to  or  IVeighted  for  i- ranee,  t^'th^^  .  « 
u  sail  bi.r,k  or  enter  sonve  neuUal  harbor."      Now  it  is  certam,  that  the 
fonventioi.  of  tiie  25th  iViarch,  1793,  was  the  only  arra..  'tment,  that  was 
t>:ecuted  between  Rujvsia  and  hngbnt',  between  that  day  and  July  oO. 
-1793      This  was  a  commercial  blockade  more  extreme  tlian  thiU  ol  i-n- 
gland  by  France  in  the  Decree  of  Nov,  1 806. 


•m-j- 


PamjthUt 


(  "  ) 

^evcial  intercourse  -^  J^^ -forJc'^for ^^^^ 
StS^^^d'^eS  L^y^-  ana  fa.r  ad- 

«es  to  the  farmer  -d  *!f,S»^*h,,e  the  expUcit 

h  is  of  the  utmost  "nP°«^"'=^  »™*  ^^,^^  •,„  execution 

declaration  of  Lord  Grenv.le,  that  it  was  ^^^ 

and  fulfilment  of  this  ""venUon  ™^  1793,  ^ere 

British  additional  orders  of  t^e  8th  rf^^^^^       ^^^^  ^ 

framed  and  issued,     .r*";  *'"e' *"     p        ,^  „der  of  the 
™t  allege,  or  even  mt.mate,  that  the  tr  ^^.^^.^^  ^^^^ 

9th  of  May  was  the  "^au^e-  "^^  ^""^.^^^^^^^  of  neutral 
previously  thereto,  '=°";™''^'^„'^'^,„eed  depredations  on 
vessels  with  gram,  and  ^''d^"™""^^  ji,^  p,\^„eh  declara- 
neutrals.  in  the  manner  set  oUh  in  tM  ^^_^^^^_ 

tion  of  war  in  February  and  '^  f^Xfcfore  plainly  as- 
tion  of  the  9th  May,   l"3--and  he  me  >'        „ded 

sisns  the  f  W\X' V  uti^l    t  the  true'^and  only     . 
authority  from  the  law  01  "'  •      .  i{.,sji,,n  pretence, 

causes  i"  and  it  is  upon  this  Brmsh  a^   <«-'      P  ^„  ^j,^ 
that  the  prov  s,an  a">c^e  °'  O'  ^  '«aty  P    ^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^j_ 

pan  of  ti,e  tngUsh.  »^«"  3';5"  ^  ^^  th„  „cvv  and  iHe- 
?a  was  induced  or  -^ot^Pf  "'f  *°  ^  uissia  It  seems  parti- 
gitimate  system  of  England  and  «;^^'^;^^'^^t„villl  also 

fularly  worthy  ot  '-^Z^c"M\^Tb.<.\  done,  in  .e- 
aUeged,tnatSpa.n  wo  Id  act  asj^ng  ^.^^^^  ^.^ 

ffardtotheneutraU— andweknowu        ,  ^^^^_ 

cordingly,*  in  the  course  of  the  jear  1793.     > 

fore  cle/rly  owe  our  ^Pf  atj^,":  .^Hnd  die  cnipreL  of 
influence,  and  persuasions  of  hngUvA  a  _^J.^^,^  ^„. 

Russia,  in  pursuance  "f  t^e  extraorm.  y  ^_^,,_^  „,,iel, 
tered  into  by  them  mMa.ch,l-9S^_^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^ 
is  not  only  calculatea,  oy  ^^^ 

.  A««.v  .«  made  by  Crea,.B.-aam  -*  Sp™-'     -  ^^^  ^  ,.,„,,^, 

bulh,.  :<"'"«<»"""'""';'""  F.„^ce  l^vin  in    hir  most   cylrcne 

moments,  bus  certain  y  '^'",  f '^  sotniish  councils  »e  <lo  i.ot  hud  t,  at 
|,cr  tallnence  "«"■'''' ''"^..'j  to  Cuiid,  has  been  amnn.t^ed  -y 
Sloppin,!  of  neutral  ""^''^ '="""^,  °  i!,"^cb  dceree  of  November.  t8<», 
e„l".-  Holland  or     pa.n.     t""^  ™  J^^,,,,  „r  ;-,■>■,,  ,vhiclvde.toes  »ar 

i:.^SM»rS:n  "^  S  tbe  neutral  couufle. 


(     12     ) 

dreadful  tendencies,  to  bring  down  upon  France  and  aU 
future  belligerent  nations  unprecedented  and  awful  mise- 
ries, but  to  inflict  upon  all  neutrals,  however  peaceful  and 
equitable,   the  suspension  of  their  ordinary  and  rightful 
navigation,  the  prevention  of  the  sales  of  their  most  valua- 
ble commodities,  the  interception  of  their  supplies  of  for- 
eign comforts  and  necessaries,   and  Ut^  dep':ndent  reven- 
ues from  exports  and  imports.     It  is  also,  too  well  calcu- 
lated to  embroil  neutrals  with  the  adversary  belligerent 
powers.     If  Portugal  should  be  involved  in  the  present 
war,  England  Jicting  upon  this  principle,  would  attempt 
to  suspend  the  accustomed  and  lawful  commerce  of  the 
United  States,  with  nearly  all  the  civilized  world ;    and 
France,    invited   by  these   examples    from     1792,  and 
prompted  by  notions  of  interest  and  necessity,  would  at- 
tempt to  suspend  our  rightful  comnierce  with  all  the  rest. 
In  these  views,   the  comiention  of  1793,  between  Russia 
and  Great  Britain,  as  unreservedly  and  clearly  explained 
by  Lord  Grenville  to  Mr.  Thomas  Pinckiiey,  is  a  matter 
of  the  most  serious  importance  to  the  United  States.     It  is 
the  real  corner  stone  in  the  illegitimj^te  foundation  of  all 
the  neutral  sufferings.     To  acquiesce  in  the  doctrines  and 
principles,  which  are  its  avowed  basis,  must  go  far  to  de- 
stroy the  merchant,  the  fisherman,  and  the  mariner,  and 
must  deeply  wound  the  manufacturer,  the  planter,  and  the 
farmer.     Mo  class  of  citizens  — no  description  of  property 
can  escape  the  direct  evil,  or  its  immediate  consequences. 
Upon  the  whole,  we  cannot  fail  to  recognize  the  Brit- 
ish as  t/ie  real  devisors  and  originators  of  this  grand  scheme 
of  neutral  sacrifices.     The  writer  of  this  paper  will  only 
add,  that  it  is  not  to  aggravate  this  country  against  Great 
Britian,  that  this  publication  is  now  made,  but  to  promote 
a  prudent  and  united  endeavor,  by  all  parties  in  America, 
to  terminate  Brhish  irregularities  by  a  calm,  decent  and 
determined  stand. 


F    H    1 


No.  III. 


The  most  interesting  considerations  appear  to  invite  to 
further  temperate  and  candid  discussions  of  this  subject, 
at  the  present  crisis.  This  brief  investigation,  was  re- 
spectfully and  unreservedly  communicated,   in  the  early 


Pamphlet 


(     15     ) 

mit  of  nST,  to  the  executive,  nearly  as  it  is  printed,  in 
Se  two  firs  numbers,  witl,  the  writer's  name     It  .shop, 
XZ  candour,  prudence  and  decency  towards  the  gov- 
ermnent  and  the  public  interests,  were  manifested.     Ihe 
suSwrnot  deemed  at  all  proper  for  open  d.scussio« 
at  th.t  moment.     Yet  it  appeared  very  hazardous  to  the 
countrv   ttat  it  was  ao  com'eeted  with  pohtieal  meonven, 
ience     for  the  inculpatien  of  France,  in  acase  clearly  and 
mncr'io  Sy  deman,nng  the  inculpation  of  England  as  he 
3"lr,  seemed  to  be  made  in  America,  "?'  ?">>'  J'*" 
olrcfutaVion,  but  even  to  the  W«?' '^°«"X  "^  °^ 
government.     Now,  when  danger  exists,  and  the  Leg  s- 
fauire  Tre  perhaps  about  to  determine  upon  important 
ne  sures,  the  freedom  of  the  press  is  used  to  lay  the  in- 
v^agatronlwith  decency  and  moderation  before  them,  the 
FxccutWe  eovernment  and  the  country. 

It  w  I  not  be  denied,  that  the  British  proclamation  of 
the  15th  of  November,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
ninety  two,  and  the  accompanying  directions  of  that  gov- 
enmCt;   their  custom-houses,  f  F--'.*'P^, 'S;^ 
provisions  belonging  to  powers  at  peace  ■»"*  ^»  *»« 
world,  from  proceeding  to  France,  contrary  to  what  might 
have  been  done  by  the  English  statutes,  contrary  to  their 
Fren  1.  treaty,  an/eontrar;  to  the  faith  -^  law  °f  n— 
It  is  certain,  that  there  was  then  a  dreadful  war  for  the 
orincipTes  of  liberty,  the  right  of  interior  government,  and 
[hTnuegrUy  of  their  dominions,  between  France  ou  the 
one  part?  and  Austria  and  P/ussia  on  the  other. 

As  Endand  was  not  formally  nor  actually  at  war,  she 
wafa  neiftral  also ;  and,  though  a  neutra  -th  numero- 
treaties  of  peace  and  commerce,  she  acted  contrar  j  to  the 
rgtas,  as  v^ell  of  neutrality,  as  of  j"'tiee,  amity,  and  peace 
in  interruptingher  sister  neutrals  in  their  lawful  movements 

o  Z  por^ts  of  belligerent  France,  f^r.'lTTl  ^Tt. 
ful  Britain,  at  which  those  neutrals  had  touched  or 
which  the  •  had  v«chased  or  laden  ^^^O^'uXsh^fatu  e 
of  nations,  and  under  the  protection  of  the  B"*'^^^'^'^^^^^ 
and  treaties.  This  conduct,  though  sttongW  complamed 
of  by  France,  was  repeated,  until  and  after  U.  Chauvelm  s 
list  representation,  on  the  7th  of  January,  1-93.  Ihe 
frcndW  vessels  of  France  were  similarly  treated  by  neutral 

mcnaiy  Ycss    ^^^^  F.nMand.  even  when  a  neu- 

r.nglanu.     i  nw»  «v  a^^>  *"."  — -» 


<     14     ) 

tral  power  herself,  so  early  as  1792,  promptly  violated  the 
riehts  of  neutral  commerce,  in  open  defiance  of  the  law 
of  nations,  of  various  treaties    with   neutral   states  and 
France,  and  of  her  own  statutes  !  The  ships  and  property 
of  France  (it  is  repeated)  were  treated  in  the  same  unwar- 
rantable manner,  and  her  legislature  resounded  with  loud 
complaints,     rhe  French  vjere  thus  early,  plainly,  and  un. 
questionably  instructed  in  a  lawless  method  of  procuring  the 
indispensible  staff  of  life,  at  the  expense  of  neutral  rights. 
But  it  was  pretended  by  American  apologists,  that  it  was 
a  measure  of  general  policy  in  the  court  of  St.  James,  to 
truard  aeainst  a  scarcity  of  grain  in  Great  Britain.     This, 
if  true,  would  only  prove,  that  Kn gland  promptly  violated 
the  neutral  rights,  to  guard,  by  anticipatiour  merely  against 
a  possible   scarcity,  when  she  enjoyed  interior  order  and 
peace.— The  original  high  charge  forcibly   recurs  :    she 
certainly  did  tliereby  set  the  fatal  example  of  violating  neu> 
tril  rights.     It  was  several  months  before  much  injured 
France  followed  her  in  any  similar  measure,  though  urg- 
ed by  the  necessities  of  an  internal  revolution,   and  by 
foreiiin  war,  and  though  under  the  actual  pressure  of  a 
famine.      But  it  is  manifestly  not  true,  that  this  British 
conduct  was  to  guard  against  scarcity  at  home  ;  for,  on 
the    15th  November,  grain  was  declared  inadmissible  in 
Liverpool,  at  the  low  duties,  and  England  permitted  for- 
eign  grain  to  be  freely  cleared  out  in  1792,  for  all  other 
places  except  the  ports  of  France,  even  to  supply  the  en- 
emies  of  that  country,  while  she  ordered  her  ^ustom-hou- 
ses  to  refuse  its  exportation  to  France  alone.     Will  it  be 
said  that  England  excluded   grain  from  Liverpool,   her 
great  manufacturers'  provision  market,  and  permitted  it  to 
be  exported  to  all  her  own  friends,  and  to  all  the  enemies 
of  France,  in  order  to  prevent  a  deficieacy  of  subsistance 
in  Great  Britain  ?  But  the  reality  of  the  intention  of  dis- 
tressing  France  by  these  prohibitory  measures,  is  indis- 
putably  proved  by  the  English  refusal  to  permit  the  ex- 
portation of  blankets,  cloths  and  cordage,  to  1  ranee,  in 
1792,  contrary  to  law  and  treaty,  which  actually   took 
place.      Perhaps,  however,  we  are  expected  to  believe, 
that  it  was  intended  to  feed  the  good  people  of  England 
iiDon    bale  goods,  iron  manuiactures,  j^un  pmvGcr   am. 
But  whatever  were  the  intentions  of  Great  Ur.it- 


I    i    \ 


y .  ) 


cor 


dage. 


« .  I 


(     15     ) 

,i„  towards  France  in  1792,  neutral  rights  were  violated 
Ttheir  execution  without  hesitation  on  lier  part,  or  apol- 

"''v.r^^CT^Z  r:  France  did  not  co.piain  of  the 
English  stopwe  of  grain,   as   an  infraction  of  neutral 
Sts     This.  Utruef  would  not  alter  the  mjunous  na- 
fe  oV  the t itish  conduct  to  .  us      It  w-  "-t  -tura 
for  France,  who  was  at  war  with  Austria  and  Prussia,  not 
o  compUin  as  a  neutral,  but  to  remonstrate  as  she  did, 
Z  vSs  prounds,  that  her  treaty  was  openly  broken,  and 
S:aUheTal^:f  Kngland  were deUberately  ^^o Ue  ^o  inpre 
her  alone     Bat  she  went  much  further  :  she  deturea  so 
c    ,y  "die  7thof  January,  1703, by  M. C.hauvelin.herres 
idcnt  minister  in  London,  to  Lord  GrenviHe,  that  UnglaM 
t     rkn/ai.h  '.ith  all  Europe  ^  that  fo/e.g"  mercha.^ 
had  b«n  induced  to  send  their  cargoes  of  gr^n  to  Brit  sh 
.v.its  bv  an  !  nglish  proclamation,  dated  soon  a|ter  tne 
?^h  of  November,  1792,  which  took  off  the  proh.biUori 
r.^m  Ibreim  erain  i  and  yet,  that  their  foreign  grain  so 
[nrorted   waf  rem  ed  a  clearance  for  France  alone,  about 
oweks  afterwards      M.  Chauvelin  treated  these  mea, 
lures  as  highly  injurious  and  offensive,  nay,  as  actuaUy 
w/to  fLcc,  in  which  he  was  perfectly  reguto.    He 
cruid  not  with  p'ropriety  go  further,  *-  .ncidem^^^^^^^ 
make  a  general  representation  of  a  breach  of  faith  m  regaro 
to  other, lations,  Seeing  that  they  all  had  ministers  on  the 
snot.  This  just  and  criminating  representation  he  did  make 
TL  mostixplicit  and  serious  terms    It  W-"  Y^'cs' t^e 
GienvUle  acknowledged,  on  the  ^'hof  January.  '"S,  the 
receipt  of  M.  Chauvelin's  representation  of  Ae  7th,  about 
the  Uritish  meas..'^   concermng  gram.     »*'  however, 
gave  no  other  reply  .o  its  strong  and  solemn  complaints 
bu,  that  of  declaring,  that  the  English  P™«f '"S,^^^?"^ 
the  exportation  of  grain,   &c.  were  founded  on  pohucal 
motives  of  jealousy  and  uneasiness.     He  does  not  deny 
Ze  of  the  bets  brought  forward  by  the  trench,  nor  pre- 
tend that  they  were  measures  intended  to  prevent  want  m 
England.*  The  neutrals  received  no  apology  or  compen- 

•  Du,i.«  the  time  of  the  tn.n3aclio.1s  »e  have  just  «»«■>' .""'jf I' '"' 
,„e,Ke':n7eom,.e  »ere  leading  '^"^:^ZT^l:^^^ 
neutral  states.  Their  o..n  >»r.ters  t^f"™;  !  "^  *'.'•  'X^^  ,he  British 
of  Europe  and  Annual  Kegiatef  01  1  ( »o,  rewi  Js  >H.t      -  ne-i  -- 


(     16     ) 

sation  for  the  past—nor  security,  for  the  future.  On  thd 
contrary,  the  British  e^overnment  having  thus  early  and 
thus  readily  adopted  this  conduct,  so  palpably  and  ex- 
tremely irregular  in  itself,  and  injurious  to  the  powers  not 
at  war,  that  is,  to  their  sister  neutrals,  pursued  it  till  the 
French  declaration  of  hostilities,  on  the  1st.  of  February, 
1793.  This  was  dated  on  the  very  day,  previously  lixcd 
by  England,  for  sending  away  M.  Chauvelin,  the  nunistcr 
of  France.' 


No.  IV. 
Two  circumstances  of  great  delicacy  and  magnitude, 
which  took  pi. ice  as  early  as  the  17th  of  August  and  the 
21st.  of  September,  1792,  must  have  excited  the  attention 
of  the  French  nation  and  must  have  convinced  them,  that 
they  were  soon  to  meet  a  zealous  and  irregular  enemy  ni 
the  king  of  England.  A  communication  from  Mr.  H. 
Dundas,  of  the  17th  of  August,  1792,  to  earl  Go\wr,  the 
English  minister  at  Paris,  was  delivered  to  the  French 

nVinistry  laid  an  embargo  on  all  vessels  in  the  British  ports  laden  nvith  corn 
for  France^  the  French  envoys,  consuls,  and  residents,  at  Hamburgh, 
Lubec,  Bremen,  8cc.  contracted  for  corn  in  those  places,  See.  In  a  short 
time  the  king  of  Prussia  (then  the  close  ally  of  England)  b,-:'g  mjormcd 
of  these  contracts,  sent  letters  of  the  19th  of  January,  1793,  to  the  ma- 
gistrates of  those  cities,  commanding  them,  in  the  most  peremtory 
manner,  instantly  to  notify  the  French  ministers  to  depart  in  two  days. 
England  is  said  to  have  previously  concurred  with  Prussia  m  the  Pihntz 
confederacy  ;  and  certainly  did  form,  in  1793,  a  treaty  with  Prussia  m 
the  very  terms  of  the  article  of  the  Russian  convention,  on  which  we 
have  seen  that  alt  the  neutral  spoliations  were  founded.  „  •  •  . 

The  same  English  authority  adds,  that  "  early  in  1,793  neutral  British 
cruisers  were  stationed  to  intercept  the  Hamburgh  and  Baltic  vessels  in 
their  voyages  to  Trance."  And  that  when  the  French  national  conven- 
tion heard  of  this  measure,  they  gave  orders  to  stop  the  Hamburgh, 
Bremen,  Lubec,  and  Dutch  vessels.  All  this  was  before  the  l^ench 
decree  of  May  9th,  1793,  and  greatly  contributed  to  bring  it  on.  1  he 
detention  of  all  vessels  for  France,  even  with  foreign  wiieat,  by  England, 
in  December,  had  been  communicated  by  the  French  ministers  in  Pans 
to  the  convention,  who  temperately  ordered  a  reinvestitration  of  the  facts, 
before  they  would  act  upon  the  subject.  Their  embargo  was  postponed 
bv  this  moderation  and  prudence,  till  February,  when  the  Prussian  acts 
towards  Hamburgh,  &c.  and  the  stationing  of  the  English  cruizei  s,  had 
taken  place.  Here  we  mav  perceive  are  more  of  theearly  and  realbcg-ou 
nings  of  the  lonq  train  of  causes  of  the  decree  of  the  emperor  of  1' ranee 
of  November  I'soo,  which  however  does  i.ot  prevent  our  *r?.de  to  Gi-t:at 
Britain,  and  is  therefore  far  short  of  tlie  British  precedents  ot  1792  and 
lf93. 


' 


«,.  > 


Phctomount 
Pamphlet 


' 


' 


Bov«rnme*t,  from  which  Vt  appears,  tl^t  the  British^?^ 
C  orfv  rroWd  JhtirmmUter  from  France,  on  aecoWt 
of  thfeveSsof  the  10th,  on  the  plea  of  mamt^img  r^ 
l!u'  b«t  tL  Uuiy  plainly  a»K>anoed  to  theFren*. 
:t\;^t^epe»aeg  « .^^  -  ^^ 

with  that  of  all  Enrope.    The  *«"f  ?; '"  UTJ:^  ^  fy^, 
th,.  rise  of  the  British  nation  against  king  (jnaries  »»  «»'• 
SX  k^wn  P^edent,  justifyiSg  their  treaunent  rf  a  kms- 
a"  tSTcommm^catiin  was  »a<ie  from  fng^nd  ^ 
aS&ptember,  im.tbrough  their  minist^  ?^the^«e. 

to  the  fiutch  e^-^-^^^^tngSa-So'ToZ^w! 
*-«i  *^^A^  rtnlcen  too  bcforc  the  occjree  ot  iraicrm*.y,  «««* 

»  e^stulad^of  ^ -f  X?t:.^1»%^t:r^  a 
responded  with  the  <>^P^»L^i^,i„„,  rf  famine,  and  oE 

tween  the  two  countries,  attea:  uus  ocpu 

the  ^ar  Xl^ok  place  on  tne  fir.t  of  February.  1793 
.  The  Batish  vioH>,«i  ».u«l  rishl,,  ue.  »  defend  tl,e»selv»,  W  » 


I 


)■;-, 


(     18     ) 

lliat  the  cabinet  of  St.  James  had  endeavored  to  obstrtict 
th^  different  purchases  of  corn,  and  other  supplies  made 
by  the  French  citizens,  oi  by  the  agents  of  the  French 
««e(iublic  ;  that  the  same  court  laid  an  cnibarcro  upon  di- 
v^rs^essels,  mcluding  neutrals^  and  boats  laden  with  corn 
■for' France  ;  while,  contrary  to  tlie  French  treaty  of  1786, 
th«'<?xportation  of  corn  was  permitted  to  other  countries  ; 
imd^hat  the.  same  court  had  drawn  in  the  neuti'al  stadt- 
hoidtr  to  obstluct  cxijortations  from  Holland  for  France. 
•,.  Tilt;  dreadful  scheme  of  reducing  the  whole  French  peo- 
^1e  tb  ail  the  terrtts  of  the  combined  powers  by  famine,  at 
^h'e  jexpfense  of  neutrals'  rights,  was  manifestly  in  a  course 
of  negociution  during  all  this  time  For,  from  the  15th 
of  November,  1792,  when  the  British  first  interrupted  the 
exportation  of  grain  to  France,  until  the  25th  of  March, 
17-93,-whcn  Lord  Granville,  (who  communicated  with  M. 
•Ghativelin)signcd'tl\e  Russian  convention  in  London,  there 
Were  only  four  months  and  ten  days.  A  new  and  deep 
laid  scheme,  which  .ivat^to  concenter  the  views  andeonl- 
bine  the  fcxertion«  of  two  remote  and  great  nations,  against 
the  power,,  the  politics,  the  entierty  and  the  very  subsist- 
ence  of  Yv^mcey  and  ticutral  rig/its  cou\d  not  be  matured, 
even  in  that  time,  without  the  most  willing  dispositions, 
in  both  the  contracting  parties.  The  presumption  is  rather, 
that  England,  who  has  long  suffered  the  uncontradicted 
asserti6n,  that  she  bad  engaged  iiv-iMarch  1793,  in  the 
Pilnitz  confederacy,  v/as  maturing  the  plan  of  distress 
and  famine,  at  the'txpense  of  neutral  rights,  through  the 
summer  of  1792  ;  seeing  that  she  unfolded  it  so  clearly  in 
the  middle  of  November,  of  that  year.  Be  this,  however^ 
as  it  mdy,  after  time  sufficient  to  mature  it,  she  put  the 
last  finishing  hand  td  the  convention  of  Russia^  on  the 
26th  of  March,  1793,  and  announced  it  openly  lin- the 
London  newspapers  of  that  day.  Lord  Grenvilk  has  given 
i4s  the  true  sense  and  real  object  of  a  part  of  that  tonven- 
tion.  It  was,  that  Russia  and  England  bound  themselves 
to  make  such  violations  of  neutral  rights;  as,  the  English 
made  under  their  additional  orders  of  J.unp*11793  ;  which 
ivere  the  same  kind  of  violations,  as  the  English  Imdpre- 


1 /At     «ir\rft^^^    /^T 


/I     hr>l-u-p/-»n  ihf  hefiiiiujifr 


of  tlie  war.  and  the  date  qi  the.Russiau  cojivention.    The 


i 


Pamphlet 


(     19     ) 

detentions  and  obstructions  of  the  French  cdmpfvcrfce  ot 
grain  by  Kngland,  from  the  l5th  of  November,  1792,  till 
the  war  in  February,  were  as  similar  in  their  nature,  dcrf.» 
sign,  and  tendency,  as  possible,  which  we  have 'already*-, 
shown;  fjartimldrly,  as  to  a  rcal^Jtep,  mid  illegitimate 
injury  to  neutral  rights  and  commerce.     They  were  a  suit* 
able  prelude  to  the  Russian  convention,  and  to  the  orders t 
of  June,  and  November,  1793,  andi  May,   1795.     The 
words  of  the  Russian  and  British  convlsntion,  upon  which 
the  violations  of  neutral  rights  are  grounded,  are  that  the- 
British  and  Russians  '»  engage  to  unite  all  their  efforts  to 
prevent  other  powers,  not  implicated 'iu  this  war  [i..e.  neu- 
trals] from  giving,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  protection 
whatever,  in  consequence  of  their  neutrality,  to  the  com- 
merce of  the  French,  upon  the  seas,  or  in  the  ports  of. 
France."     The  commerce  -of  provisions  is  notoriously 
the  greatest  and  most  necessary  branch  of  the  commerce 
of  the  world.     The  French,  in  peace  and  in  the  war  with 
England,  and  the  neutrals,  had  been  grossly  attacked  ia 
that  branch  of  commerce,  from  November,   1792,.  to  the 
date  of  the  Russian  convention.     The  English   treaty- 
maker,  himself,    lord  Grenville,   had  avowed,  that  the 
interruption  of  the  French    and  neutral   intercourse    in 
provisions,  was  included  in,  and  was  a  business  of  the 
convention.     There  could  be  no  room  for  doubts  ulnrnt;- 
the  injury  to  neutral  trade,  which  was  in  effect  rtu o'^jm^c- 
tively  sanctioned,  and  intended  to  be  extended  and.ppni 
tinued  by  that /f7?^/ and  rm/>r6Y<?r/<?»/^flf  compact.      ^    -  oi   ■? 
In  regard  to  the  declaration  of  lord  Grenville,  it  reallj^ 
appears,  that  nothing  can  be  more  explicit.  N#.  T.  Pinck- 
ney  was  officially  making  a  representation  against  the  inju. 
ries  to  us  from  the  plan  of  operating  on  France,  by  neutral 
detentions,  captures,  and  spoliations,  as  execwted  under, 
or  intended  by  '"--  British  June  orders.     Lord  Grenville 
said,  that  Spain  „.ould  pursue  the  English  line  of  conduct, 
that  is,  would  violate  neutral  commerce,  and  that  Russia 
and  Kngland  had  previously  intended  it  by  their  compact 
of  March,  1793.     Tlie  pailicular  case  of  that  business 
actually  in  discussion,  by  the  two  ministers,  was  the  June 
ordersj  to  the  end  of  reducing  France  by  famine,  by  inter- 
rupting our  and  other  neutral  intercourse  and  commerq<? 


pi 


(     20     ) 

with  her.  It  follows,  logically,  that  if  tht;  convention  in. 
tended  the  object,  the  exccntion  of  the  object  was  an  ex- 
ecution  and  fulfilment  of  the  convention.  Thc^se  papers, 
as  received  by  the  department  of  state  from  Mr.  Tinckncy , 
appear  to  afford  the  mast  clear  and  positive  evidence,  that 
England,  by  a  treaty  requiring  months  to  digest  and  com- 
plete, had  dcliberatelr  matured,  in  March,  1793,  the  fatal 
system  of  violating  neutral  commerce,  in  a  manner  abso. 
lutely  unlawful,  and  most  pernicious  and  unprecedented, 
above  a  month  before  the  French  orders  of  May.  It  may 
be  repeated,  and  requires  to  be  well  remembered,  that 
she  also  appears  to  have  commenced  it  on  the  15th  of 
November,  1792,  ami  to  have  pursued  it  for  months 
after,  by  her  own  unlawful  and  separate  acts,  bcfire  Rus- 
sia concurred,  - 

We  were  told  that  the  measure,  as  once  settled  by 
treaty,  was  against  England,  and  in  our  favor.  ITiis  is 
not  at  all  the  question  with  France.  The  Danes  say,  with- 
attt  reserve t  that  it  was  a  breach  of  neutrality  even  to  treat 
en  it.  It  is  not  likely,  however,  that  a  measure,  is  on  the 
whole,  against  England  and  beneficial  to  us,  which  she 
urged;  nay,  absolutely  forced  us  into ;  which  our  govern- 
ment reprobated t  in  the  English  sense  of  it,  in  1795, 
•which  English  sense  of  it,  the  late  president  Washington 
wisely  and  honestly  demurred  against  in  1795,  and  for 
which  he  refused  to  ratify  the  British  treaty,  until  he  should 
be  satisfied  that  a  measure,  which  he  supposed  the  English 
to  consider  as  an  execution  of  it,  would  be  countermand- 
ed by  them.* 

The  mejfture  of  violating  the  commercial  rights  of 
"America  will  plainly  appear,  to  any  candid  examlnant,  to 
be  a  part  ©f  the  great  system  of  measures,  infracting  the 
rights  of  pacific  and  neutral  nations,  adopted  by  th«  com- 
bined powers  to  annoy  the  French  in  their  revolutionary 
struggle.  We  know  that  the  revolution  was  odious  to 
them  from  its  outset.  For,  in  the  month  of  August, 
1792,  Austria  and  Prussia,  th^  two  leading  menibers  of 
the  combination  against  France,  declared  in  a  public  mani- 
festOj  that  all  Europe  had  beheld  the  French  revolutio^ 

•  The  British  rene%val  of  the  order  to  detain  provision  vessels  in  May  »^ 
1795,  only  six  montlw  after  our  BiUish  treaty  was  signed  by  Mr.  Jftjsl^ 


,  [ 


*t' 


Pamphlet 

„JJii(teiL.. 


*t' 


(    21     ) 

with  increasing;  indit^nation  for  fmir  years  ;  that  Is,  from  the 
r»rst  dawnings  of  liberty,  in  the  year  1788,  in  the  mtcting 
of  the  "  Notables  r'  and  it  has  been  frequently  declared, 
in  the  course  of  the  measures  pursued  by  them,  that  the 
French  were  not  entitled  to  the  ordinary  benefits  resviting 
from  neutral  intercourse,  with,  what  they  denominated, 
''regular   governments."     The   ministers  of  England, 
abroad,  have  gone  the  utmost  lengths  upon  this  subject. 
One  of  them,   Mr.  Drake,  declared  to  the  republic  of 
Genoa,  in  1793,  **  that  in  the  present  war  against  the 
usurpers  of  the  supreme  power  of  France,  no  government 
can  declare  itself  neuter,  without  becoming  an  accomplice.*^ 
The  annals  of  the  world  cpnnot  proc'uce  an  equal  outrage 
upon  neutral  rights.     It  is  an  appropriate  preamble  to  the 
iijmense  volume  of  their  illegitimate  anti- neutral  prders  of 
council. 

So  early  as  the  29d  of  May,  1793,  when  the  British 
orders  of  Jun©  did  not  exist.  Lord  Harvey,  the  British 
minister  at  Florence,  declared  in  a  letter  to  the  Tuscan 
prime  minister,  that  the  continuance  of  the  neutrality  of 
the  grand  D\ike  of  Tuscany  would  depend  upon  the  opi- 
nions of  the  combined  powers,   concerning  the  inconve- 
Bience  arising  to  them  from  the  immense  supplies,  which 
were  drawn  from  Tuscany  for  the  use  of  France.*   A  large 
fleet  of  grain  ships  had  sailed  for  Toulon  eleven  days  be- 
fore. The  same  lord  Harvey  communicated  circular  letters 
to  the  Russian  and  all  other  foreign  ministers  residing  at 
Florence  (the  very  scat  of  the  neutral  Tuscan  government]! 
informing  them,  that  he  had  announced  to  the  grand  duke 
the  expected  arrival  of  a  great  British  and  Spanish  fleet  in 
those  seas,  with  a  view  to  learn  the  eflG^ct  upon  the  diike's 
known  neutrality,  and  of  producing  a  departure  from  that; 
neutrality.  Lord  Harvey  continued  to  observe  to  the  Rus- 
sian minister,  that  the  grand  duke's  reply  (adhering  to 
neutrality  J  was  incompatible  with  the  designs  and  interest; 
of  Europe.,  He  then  states  the  conduct  of  t^c  duke  as 
different  from  that  of  the  principal  powers  of  Eprope,  and 
says,  that  he  ^oulpts  not,  that  it  is  thought  necessary  "  to> 
guide^*  that  neutrality,  in  a  manner  more  suitable  to  thcx 
circumstances  of  the  lim^,  anq  tp  the  views  of  the  powers, 
allied  against  France. 

♦  Thes?  are  very  far  short  of  what  the  United  States  could  furnish. 


(     22     ) 

f  Here  we  sec  nn  inferior  British  minister,  prepared  no 
iloulH  by  previous  secret  instructions,  so  early  as  May, 
1 793,  vvitli  a  grand  Britisli  and  Spanish  fleet  of  32  ships  of 
the  line,  assuming  to  forbid  lejt^itimate  neutral  supplies  for 
I  ranee  to  be  made  by  an  independent  neutral  commercial 
prince,  at  a  court  distant  about  1500  miles  from  England. 
And  to  whom  does  the  English  minister  address  himself? 
To  the  Russian  ambassador  there,  who  was  some  thousands 
of  miles  from  his  Empress,  and  who  gave  him  instantly  a 
concurring  reply.  Can  it  be  doubted,  then,  that  these 
ministers  were  acting  on  the  ground  of  the  Russian  and 
British  convention  of  March,  1793,  or  more  probably  of  a 
prior  understanding  and  orders  ?  Were  they  not  prevent- 
ing a  neutral  power  from  giving  protection  to  the  all-im- 
portant French  commerce  for  supplies,  by  reason  of  its 
neutrality  ? 

These  are  spmc  of  the  numerous  and  irrcstiblc  eviden- 
ces of  this  grand  British  and  Russian  scheme  of  neutral  in- 
juries.—-We  see  it  in  the  captures,  and  detentions  of  neu- 
tral vessels,  which  were  made  before  the  French  decree 
of  the  9th  of  May,  1793,   (of  some  of  which  that  decree 
complains)  in  actual  execution  of  the  Russian  convention, 
ivhic)i  lord  Grenvillc  confessed  to  be  a  part  vi  Cm.  same 
plan^  though  attempts  were  and  still  are  mr  i"  hrre  io  de- 
ny, what  the   British  maker  of  the  convention  asserts  he 
himself  did !  Furtheyividence  is  to  be  found  in  the  great 
nuiiiber  of  treaties,  which  England  made  and  procured  in 
Jl7,9ii,  v'sth  various  powers,  in  the  tinlaivful  terms  or  near- 
ly j'sViv'tfcrmf  of  that  Russian  convention,  which  wasde- 
cian»f  t  ■  be  iiiiBlled,  in  regard  to  that  object,  by  orders 
for  swjh  captures  and  detensions  as  we  complain  of,  and 
as  the  Bril^^h  additional  orders,  of  the  8th  of  June,  l79Sit 
and  5tli  pf  May,   1 79$,  occawoned,  to  be  extensively  re- 
peate(i  upon  us.     A  still  further  proof  is  to  be  found  in 
the  noticed  conduct  of  Great  i^ritain,  in  the  Spring,  Sum- 
"mer  and  Fall  of  1793,  to  the  republic  of  Genoa.,  and  to  the 
grand  duke  of  Tuscany,  ti^  laUer  of  whom  was  given  to 
understand  by  the  British  minister,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
the  mere  suppjies  he  furnished  France,  were  cause  of  of- 
fence to  England.andiier  allies,  and  by  his  being  ultimate- 
ly forded  by  the  English  to  abandon  his  neutrality.     (Sec 
Mr.  T.  Pinckney's  letter  of  1793.) 


• 


.  : 


Pamphlet 
mn4w 


(    25     } 

It  ought  to  be  candklly  and  well  remembered,  that 
France  made  her  decree,  so  that  it  was  to  cease  whenever 
neutral  provisions  should  be  exempted  from  seizure  by 
her  enemies ;  and  she  did  not  pretend  to  confiscate,  as 
prize,  as  England  now  does,  the  neutral  property.  Great 
Britain  could  have  tcrniinated  the  French  irrcguluritiesi 
whenever  she  would  have  become  regular  herself.  But 
when  France  and  the  neutrals  required  her  to  desist  from 
future  aggressions,  she  rashly  proceeded  to  increase  and 
multiply  every  description  of  neutral  injut-ies,  and  to  act 
more  and  more  contrary  to  the  usages  among  civilized 
belligerents.  . 


., 


No.  V. 

Fair  and  serious  appeals  to  the  love  of  justice  and  peace 
will  receive,  it  is  believed,  due  attention  in  America, 
wherever  they  circulate.  If  enlightened  public  opinion 
should  contribute  to  influence,  without  passion  or  disor* 
der,  honest  errors,  evil  designs  or  dangerous  prejudices, 
it  must  be  deemed  an  inestimable  result  of  the  wisdom 
and  virtue  of  the  people.  It  has  been  shewn  that  Great 
Britain  really  began,  in  the  autumn  of  1792,  the  system  of 
encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  neutral  nations,  and  that 
she  maintained  and  pursued  that  system  through  the 
months  of  November  and  December,  1792,  and  througli 
the  months  of  Jatiuary,  February,  March  and  April,  and 
until  the  decree  of  the  French  convention  of  tiie  9th  of 
May,  1793.  We  know,  that  it  was  further  confirmed  as 
to  European  France,  by  her  orders  of  June,  1793,  and  ill 
regard  to  all  the  colonies  of  France,  in  November,  1793. 
We  ought  to  be  sensible,  that  this  British  plan  brought 
upon  us  numerous  Spanish  captures  and  spoliations,  by 
means  of  a  treaty  to  that  end,  made  by  Spain  cind  England 
early  in  17 95.  We  ought  particularly  to  cdnsider  these 
positive  evidences  before  us,  that  Great  Britain  was  the 
real  and  principal  cause  of  bringing  on  us  the  late  injuri- 
ous conduct  of  republican  France.  For,  when  a  great 
belligerent  power,  like  England,  applies  zealously  and  un- 
remittingly to  aii  the  otner  enemies  of  France,  and  to  all 
neutrals,  to  concur  in  or  countenance  such  an  unprece* 


ii 


•lii 


i 


(    24    ) 

dented  Kteine  of  destouctive,  unauthorized,  and  unjust 
«rfa«..  it  is  impossible  to  prevent  the  nsmg  ofthe  most 
powS  and  irregular  passion*  in  a  county  U^  Fr»nee, 
SS  oaelike  England,  «.«!  those  w!v>  .n  any  w.se,<;o«n. 
Mmwed  this  fatal  English  and  Russian  measure.  The 
to^lnd  honest  prudence,  whleh  was  observed  on  he 
„Si^occa,ion  by  the  worthy  and  intelUgent  director  of  the 
c^ncils  of  Denmark  (the  late  count  Bernstorff  wellmer- 
Saro^r  attention,  a^  will  be  seen  in  the  fo»owmg  ex- 

3e':s":fTe%TrL?:  n^'a^owedly  appertamed 
The  mustrious  and  virtuous  Dane  declared,  he  could  not 
even  W^^  the  subject,  as  a  faithful  neutral ,  andthen, 
repellTng  this  monstrois  inroad  upon  neutral  nghts,  by 
ieaso^by  justice,  by  humanity  and  even  by  the  torraer 
conduit  of  Great  Britain  herself,  he  thus  expressed  h.m. 

"^'^he  point  in  question"  said  cmint  Bernstorff,  "  is  only 
.'  with  ve^ect  to  private  speculations  of  the  sale  of  «ncon- 
..Traband^articles  of  produce  and  gram,  *e  d^'posal  of 
.'  which  is  not  less  important  to  the  seller,  than  it  is  to  the 
..  buycr,and  to  tte  freight  of  the  vessels  of  a  natio.i,  whose 
..  cWef  support  is  depending  on  the  "dvanV;ge^  they  '^^^^^^ 
"  fiom  tlicir  navigation  and  corn  trade.     If  it  be  permitted 
"  to  "mbh  blocked  up  port,  and  frtiBed  »owns,J.dong. 
..  ing  to  an  enemy,  it  does  not  appear  to  bejusuce  m  the 
"  same  decree,  to  extend  similar  misery  to  others,  -»ho  ^re 
"TZc^f;  ami  e^en  in  France,  there  are  provmccs  that 
"  could  ntver  ha^c  drser^ed  such  an  increase  of  misery  front 
"  the  hands  of  Jiimland*  or  its  allies.  ■ 

"ZJ^  of  con.,  as  a  common  consequence  ol  the 
"  want  of  a  supply  of  provisions,  is  not  so  exuaordmary 
..  rchcums3  L  FrLce,  as  could  only  have  been  pro- 
"  duced  by  the  late  events.  France  has,  ■»' -j"  f '^^^  ^"" 
'<  obliged  todraw  provisions  from  other  nations.  Ah.ca, 
"  Italy,  and  America  supply  that  country  with  more  pro- 
.'  v^simis  Uxan  the  Baltic.  Their  necessity,  m  applying  to 
»'  other  nations  tor  provisions,  is  so  far  from  bemg  new, 

_     .         ,.-;•..  ..,.,..„tion  in  favor  of  the  Hanovcriam 

aKlHnsl  "lie  UlocUaJes  *>!'  llicir  Utvcrs. 


\ 


\ 


J 


Pamphlet 
Binder 


\ 


(     25     ) 

'^  that  in  the  year  1709,  when  there  was  a  real  famine  in 
"France,  England  never  thought  of  making  use  of  such 
*'  arguments  as  she  does  at  present.  ^ 

*'  On  the  contrary  ;  soon  after  Frederic  IV.*  was  en- 
"  gac-ed  in  a  war  with  Sweden,  which  kingdom,  as  well 
''  as' France,  is  dependent  on  other  nations  for  the  supply 
''of  provisions,  he  used  the  same  arguments  to  prevent 
"  the  supply  of  provisions  to  an  enemy,  in  order  by  those 
«'  means  to  subdue  him,  and  endeavored  to  apply  a  case 
"  to  a  whole  country,  which  is  cj^ly  applicable  or  justifia- 
*'  ble  with  respect  to  blockaded  towns  or  forts. 

*'  He  was  obliged  to  renounce  that  project,  on  account 
"  of  the  weighty  representations  made  on  that  subject,  by 
"  other  courts  of  Europe,  and  particularly  by  that  of  Great 
»'  Britain,  who  declared    it  a  neiv  principle,  and  rejected 

*'  it  as  unjust.  .     .  ,        »  ,  ^  j 

Thus  then  we  see,  that  the  prmciples  of  the  system  and 
plan  of  inHicting  upon  France  the  miseries  of  famme,^;f 
neutral  detent:nns  and  spoliations,  was  firmly  resisted  by 
Denmark,  and  ti.at  they  were  formerly  rejected  by  Lng^ 
land  herself  as  a  manifest  and  unjust  innovation  upon  the 
universal  law  of  nations,  in  relation  to  neutrals  and  belli- 

eerents. 

This  is  a  matter  of  no  small  or  momentary  importance 
to  the  United  States,  for  it  permanently  affects  our  sur- 
plus s-rain,  rice,  flour,  beef,  pork,  fish,  and  vegetables--as 
also  our  carrying  trade.     It  is  therefore  necessary  to  bear 
in  mind  the  principles  respectively  avowed  uy  the  trench 
and  British  nations,  and  the  time  and  manner  of  their  be- 
in^'-  unfolded  by  their  conduct  and  public  acts.     Jl^ngland 
asserts  that  she  may  take  neutral  provisions  for  a  whole 
people  going  to  their  unblockaded  places  m  neutral  ships. 
France  and  all  the  neutrals  deny  this  ;    and  England  her- 
self and  other  powers  formerly  declared  it  "  unjust,"  and 
new  :  that  is  to  say,  an  iniquitous  innovation  on  the  law 
of  nations.      England  perseveres   and   persuades  many 
other  powers  into  the  scheme.     The  neutrals  omitting  or 
failing  to  obtain  redress,  France   is  burdened   with  im- 
mense expense  to  procure  bread,  and  subjected  to  th» 
most  palpable  dangers  of  convulsion  and  iaiTiine.      1  nus 

•  The  king  of  Denmark  in  the  time  of  Queen  Anne,  of  Lngli)#icl. 


;    ! 


(    26    ) 

circumstanced,  France  promulgates  an  act  of  May  0, 1793, 
declaring,  that  she  will  from  necessity /o//oiu  the  example 
openly  set  by  England,  and  take  neutral  provisions  going 
to  her  enemies,  paying  for  them,  however,  at  the  price  in 
the  place  of  destination— hwt  that  she  will  continue  to  do. 
so  only  till  her  enemies  shall  abandon  their  pretended  right 
to  take  neutral  provisions  going  to  unblockaded  ports. 

Let  prudence  and  conscience  decide  the  matter,  and 
pass  a  sound  judgment  in  this  interesting  case.  The 
best  writers  on  moral  science  do  not  deny  to  the  famish- 
ed man  the  right  to  take/oo(/,  which  does  not  belong  to 
him,  if  he  avows  and  executes  an  intention  to  pay  the 
owner. 


I         \ 


i  I 


i 

i 

L     .         - 

I 

No.  VI. 

As  the  constitution  and  laws  of  England  did  not  admit 
that  government  to   avail  itself  of  the  execution  of  the 
British  and  Russian  convention  of  March  1793,  without 
acts  of  Parliament  indemnifying  the  ministry  of  the  day 
for  each  order  for  the  seizure  of  neutrals  against  the  law 
of  nations,  and  as  the  orders  of  the  8th  of  June  1793,  were 
thus  illegitimate  ;  and  further  as  the  frequent  passing  of 
acts  of  indemnity  would  excite  the  attention  of  neutral 
governments,  and  of  Englishmen,  a  measure  of  a  singular 
and  unprecedented  cast  was  covertly  adopted  on  the  17th  of 
XuuQ  1793,  which  was  calculated,  by  an.  insinuation  or  im- 
plication, to  indemnify  for  the  British  orders  of  that  month, 
and  for  all  those  which  England  might  chuse  to  make 
during  that  war.*     The  executive  and  judiciary  depart- 
ments of  Great  Britain  had  laid  down,  in  the  most  formal,, 
solemn  and  open  manner,  before  the  whole  world,  in  the 
case  with  Prussia,  of  the  Silesia  loan,  that  the  universal  law 
of  nations  and  existing  treaties  were  the  true  and  only  rules 
to  govern  the  British  courts  of  admiralty,  and  that   the 
crown  never  interfered  to  give  rules  or  directions   to  these 
courts,  yet  an  act  of  Parliament  was  passed,  as  a  necessary 
accompaniment  to  the  illegitimate  convention  with  Russia, 
which  act  contained  the  following  words  : 

*  This  section  and  the  addition  by  the  British  alone  to  the  proposed 
treaty  of  December  1 806  are  nearly,  connected.  In  truth,  they  are  mon- 
strous things,  formerly  unknown.. 


\  I    ) 


Pamphlet 

jBimtAt. 


'         f 


i   1  } 


(     27     ) 

Section  35.  "  Provided  that  nothing  in  this  act  contain- 
ed shall  be  construed  to  restrain  his  majesty,  his  heirs  or 
successors  from  gkmg  such  further  rules  and  directions 
from  time  to  time,  t9  his  respective  courts  of  admiralty  and 
vice  admiralty  for  the  adjudication  and  condemnation  of 
prizes,  as  by  his  majesty,  his  heirs  and  successors,  with 
the  advice  of  his  or  their  privy  council,  shall  be  thought 
necessary  and  proper. "  *  , .  . 

The  convention  of  Britain  with  Russia  and  this  section 
t)f  their  law  of  1793,  which  far  exceed,  in  principle,   the 
French  decree  of  the  21st  of  November,  1806,   laid  the 
whole  commerce  of  all  neutrals,  as  a  devoted  sacrifice  on 
the  altar  of  unlawful  power.     These  two  acts  of  England 
struck  at  the  vitals  of  the  independence  of  our  country, 
for  a  nation  whose  whole  floating  property  can  be  seized 
and  condemned  upon  the  ground  of  foreign  conventions, 
and  foreign  orders,  which  she  cannot  modify  or  restrain, 
is,  in  solemn  truth,  not  independent.    That  country  alone 
maintains  its  station  among  the  powers  of  the  earth, 
whose  territories,  whose  flag,  whose  property  and  whose 
people  are  completely  respected,  according  to  the  univer- 
sal  law  of  nations  and  to  her  own  treaties  voluntarily 
made.    This,  England  rightfully   demanded  of  all  the 
world.     Let  all  the  world  demand  this  of  England.     It 
peculiarly  behoves  the  American  merchants  to  convince 
themselves  of  the  necessity  of  standing  on  this  impregna- 
ble  ground.     From  it  alone  can  vital  and  permanent  safe- 
ty to  their  interesting  pursuits  be  derived.     If  our  gov- 
ernment must  yield  any  part  of  the  law  of  nations,  we  can 
have  no  security  for  the  remainder.     Commerce  must  be- 
come precarious,  and  domestic  consumption  in  the  form  of 
home  manufactures  must  employ  our  people   and  our 
funds ;  for  our  commerce  will  perish  with  the  subversion 
of  the  only  rule  for  the  government  of  the  republic  of  in- 
dependent states— the  universal  or  prescriptive  and  writ- 
ten law  of  nations.     This  august  code  is  the  federal  con- 
stitution of  the  civilized  world.     It  may  not  be  violated 
with  impunity  by  any  power.     Its  violation  may  not  be 
allowed  by  any  power,  without  baseness  and  ruin. 

•  See  the  famous  case  of  the  Silesia  loan  at  large,  and  tlic  abstract 
iicrcin.     ru|fC3  j^j  3j>  wvu.  i.iv.  »•. 


li 


(     28     ) 

But  let  us  return  to  our  historical  review— It  has  been 
maintained  in  these  papers,  that  it  was  erroneous  and  un- 
iust  to  ascribe  to  France,  the  origination  of  the  neutral 
sufferings— a  matter  of  great  importance  with  respect  to 
the  claims  of  retaliation  set  up  by  England.  An  entne 
view  of  that  division  of  the  subject  was  given  in  our  nrst 
numbers,  commencing  in  1792,  and  bringing  the  inquiry 
down  to  the  date  of  the  British  orders  of  the  8th  of  June, 

1793.  1 

A  distinguished  act,  continuing  and  extending  those 
violations,  \ook  place  secretly  in  the  British  privy  council 
on  the  6th  of  November,  1793.-*     It  went  the  length  o 
authorisint;  the  seizure  of  all  American  and  other  neutra 
vessels,  and  even  of  the  allies  of  England,  having  on  board 
the  produce  of  the  French  colonies,    or  provisions,   dry 
goods,  and  other  supplies  for  the  use  of  any  French  co.o- 
ny      The  French  dominions  in  the  East  Indies,  and  the 
West  Indies  were  equallv  and  fully  included.      Thus  the 
whole  French  empire,  which  chequered  the  terraqueous 
globe,  was  preposterously  treated  like  a  litt.e  blockaded 
port— for  their  European  dominions  remained  under  the 
operation  of  the  unrescinded  order  of  the  8th  June.     1  he 
Americans  and  other  neutrals  were  subjected  to  incalcu- 
lable  injuries  and  innumerable  violations.  This,  too,  con- 
trary to  all  decency  and  precedent,  was  done  in  a  secret  man- 
ner  •  for  information  of  its  existence  was  suppressed,  even 
at  the  British  admirality,  till  late  in  December;  and  it  was 
not  till  the  25th  of  December  following   its  date  that  our 
minister  at  London  (Mr.  Thomas  Pinckney)  obtained  a 
copy  of  it,  as  will  be  seen  by  his  official  letter  to  the  sec 

(*  COPY) 

George  R.    Additional  instructions— 6th  November, 
1793,  to  all  ships  of  war  and  privateers,  &c. 

'*  That  they  shall  stop  and  detain  all  ships  laden  with 
goods,  the  produce  of  any  colony  belonging  to  France,  or 
carrying  provisions  or  other  supplies  for  the  use  of  such 
colonies,  a^id  shall  bring  the  same,  with  their  cargoes,  to. 
legal  adjudication  in  our  courts  of  admiralty. 

"  By  his  maicsty's  cominana,  ,    ,^,^.^.. 

(Signed)  -  HENRY  DUNDAS,'* 


Pamphlet 


n 


(     29     ) 

T    -ry  of  state,  in  the  president's  message  to  Congress  of 
the  4lh  v.i  April,  1794.     Here  was  a  most  serious  act  of 
continucuxe  of  the  violations  of  neutral  rights  in  pursuance 
of  the  Biissian  convention,  grounded  upon  a  mere  intention 
to  attack,  in  December,  some  French  colony.— It  was  ac- 
companied   by  various    circumstances    to  render  it  ir- 
regular, offeubive,  and  injurious.     It  was  clandestine,  be- 
ing ktpL  from  the  view  of  all  the  neutral  ministers  in 
London,  for  seven  weeks  after  its  date,  and  even  rcserv- 
ed  amor.jj:  ^hc  secret  papers  of  the  British  lords  of  the  ad- 
miraltv.'ln  the  mean  time,   passages  of  four  and  five 
weeks'  carried  it  to  the  West-Indics  -.—and  our  unsus- 
pecting uiurincry,  our  vessels,  cargoes,  and  money,  were 
odiously  (Strapped  in  the  fatal  snare.     Thus  did  they  se- 
cure the  possession  of  our  sailors,  our  vessels,   and  our 
metcantile  capital.     Even  in  the  case  of  a  blockade,  the 
law  of  nations  and  the  treaties  of  England  with  the  pow- 
ers then  owninf^  the  majority  of  neutral   shipping,*  re- 
quired ^  prochmation,  and  notice  of  the  blockade,  and  a 
knowledge  of  it  by  the  neutrals,  to  justity  the  seizure. 
Beasoii  and   conscience  require  the  same.     But   Great 
Briti^ir.  treading  under  foot  those  obligations  of  the  law 
ol  nations  and  of  her   own  treaties,  and  all  decency  and 
justice  to  us,  clandestinely  made  and  transmitted  to  her 
naval  commanders  the  orders  of  the  6th  of  November,  when 
no  blockacl  e  existed .    By  those  orders ,  a  neutral  American 
or  Dane,  bound  with  French  sugar,  coifee,  Sec.  from  the 
U.  States,  a  ntutral  country,  to  Denmark  a  neutral  coun- 
try, nay  even  to  Spain  or  the  Austrian  Netherlands,  then 
countries  of  the  powers  combined  with  England  in  the 
war  against  France,  were  rendered  seizable,  though  the 
cargo  was  neutral  property  also,  but  grevv  in  a  French 
colony  !  By  the  same  order  a  cargo  of  American  produce 
and  other  goods,  which  could  by  the  arrete  of  August, 
1784,  be  carried  to  the  French  colonies  in  peace,  was  to 
be  treated  in  like  manner  !  Is  it  possible,  that  any  secret 
order  can  be  mere  extravagantly,  more  irregularly  injuri. 
ous  to  an  enemy,  and  more  violative  of  neutral  rights,  than 
the  British  system  of  orders  of  June  the  8th,  and  Vovem- 
ber  6th,  1793,  as  they  stood  in  force,  throiigh  the  months 
'  The  Danes  and  Stwede/ 


;i 


(     30     ) 

of  Nbvcmber  and  December  ?  It  was  April,  1794,  befor* 
we  knew,  that  the  November  order  either  existed  or  was 
eountermanded.  When  we  did  obtain  the  knowledge  of 
its  being  countermanded,  the  mischief  wa«  all  done.  It 
was  accompanied  too  with  the  very  unsatisfactory  and  of- 
fensive information,  that  it  was  not  recinded  from  any 
convrction  in  or  admission  by  England,  that  it  was  wrong ; 
nor  did  they  profess  that  they  would  not  repeat  it.  On 
the  contrary,  they  explicitly  avowed  that  it  was  counter- 
manded, because  it  had  served  the  occasional  end  for 
which  it  was  issued.  They  added  too  a  reason  contrary 
to  the  just  rights  and  dignity  of  our  government  and  na- 
tion. They  said,  that  it  was  intended  to  produce  an  effect 
\ipon  the  interior  circumstances  and  affairs  of  our  country 
and  government !  Professing  to  consider  it  censurable  to 
interfere  with  the  interior  concerns  of  a  foreign  country, 
the  British  secretary  of  state  did  so  interfere  in  the  same 
breath.  He  committed  a  dangerous  derogation  from  our 
right  of  interior  government,  and  gave  to  our  minister, 
Mr.  Pinkney,  (as  an  apology  !)  the  assurance,  that  he  had 
no  right  to  do  it.  He  affected  to  treat  the  complainers  in 
America  against  their  orders  of  council y  as  the  enemies  of 
Great  Britain  and  of  our  own  government  !  Mr.  Genet 
having  been  caused  by  the  French  to  expiate  his  offence 
by  the  loss  of  all  his  honors  and  emoluments,  France 
stood  on  clear  ground.  Lord  Grenville  must  be  con- 
sidered, therefore  as  the  predecessor,  in  1793,  of  all  the 
unrepaired  irregularties  of  foreign  diplomatic  characters, 
in  their  transactions  with  our  government.  His  conduct 
has  never  received  any  censure,  or  notice,  so  far  as  we 
are  informed,  except  those  manifestations  of  it,  given  in 
Mr.  Pinckney's  letter  of  the  9th  of  January,  1794,  where- 
in  he  states,  that  "  of  course  he  said  nothing,  (in  reply 
to  Lord  Grenville)  of  our  internal  affairs,  nor,  of  those  of 
France,"  they  being  our  foreign  allies. 

The  next  British  orders  of  the  8th  of  January,  1794, 
authorised  the  seizure  of  all  vessels,  bound  from  the 
French  West  India  colonics  to  Europe  ;  also  of  all  French 
West  India  produce  from  those  islands  bound  to  the  ports 
of  neutrals,  or  even  to  those  of  the  allies  of  England. 
Yet  the  British  afterwards  led  us  into  a  treaty  for  carrying 


i 


pamphlet 


(    31     ) 

not  only  their  West  India  but  their  East  India  produce  ta 
our  ports  during  the  war. — Thus  the  very  means  used  ta 
aid  all  their  own  colonies,  have  been  made  the  cause  of 
seizure  against  all  the  neutrals,  when  serving  a  part  of  the 
colonies  of  France.  Neiitrals  too,  who  had  secured  by 
treaty  the  right  to  protect  the  goods  of  an  enemy  in  their 
neutral  ships  were  deprived  of  this  stipulated  right,  in  or- 
der to  injure  France.     But  the  section  of  the  law  of  1793 

concerning  orders  of  council  protected  the  ministers 

These  were  new  repetitions  of  violations  of  neutral  com- 
merce, which  manifested  to  France  the  British  determina- 
tion to  continue,  upon  every  call  of  interest  or  instigation 
of  hostility,  ingeniously  and  without  precedent  hardily  ta 
apply  the  system  and  principle,  they  had  commenced  and 
reiterated  in  1792,  and  1793.  They  never  permitted  the 
irritability  of  the  French  to  be  abated,  nor  the  wounds  of 
neutral  rights  to  be  cured.  If  the  French  became  inflamed 
at  the  sight  of  theu-  own  wrongs,  and  at  the  vast  expences, 
injuries,  and  dangers,  which  they  produced,  Britain  surely 
was  the  cause. 


i 


No.  VIL 

It  has  been  unfortunate  for  neutral  commerce,  that  the 
merchants  could  not  know,  in  time  to  avoid  confiscations,. 
-'  the  detached  sections  of  foreign  laws,  executive  orders,. 
&c.  &c.  by  which  their  property  was  unwarrantably  con- 
demned. It  is  of  consequence  that  they  should  now  see 
and  understand  these  great  sources  of  danger  and  injury. 
Nothing  can  protect  our  merchants,  but  our  maintaining 
mviolate  the  law  of  nations.  We  have  contended,  that 
our  property  was  often  captured  and  condemned  without 
any  real  and  sound  lawful  authority,  and,  of  course,  against 
existing  law,  which  every  where  establishes  the  safety  of 
property.  It  is  proposed  now  to  offer  to  the  American 
merchants  a  decided  opinion  on  this  subject,  which  a  very 
great  majority  of  them  will  receive  as  the  most  respecta- 
ble and  indisputable.  It  comes  from  Mr.  King,  who  as. 
a  mai.  of  natural  abilities,  as  a  lawyer,  an  experienced  di-' 
plomatist,  and  perfectly  informed  by  the  English  ministers 

- ^_^, ...  »^^^„t  n;„^utiutiuii5,  m  ail  ineir  pretensions, 

writes  thus  m  the  40th  page  of  his  pamphlet  in  "  Reply  ta^ 


u 


■1 ; 


MiS 


u 


!    I 


(     52     ) 

aoar  in  Disguise,''  published  by  Riley  and  co.  of  NeW- 
York,  and  S.  F.  Bradford,  of  Philadelphia,  in  F*-bruary, 
1 866.  He  expressly  states  as  follows,  in  regard  to  British 
captures. 

"  The  prize  courts  therefore  spoke  to  neutrals  (by  their 
decrees)  this  clear  and  distinct  language.  We  acknow- 
ledge, that  by  the  laiv  of  nations  you  are  entitled  to  the 
prohibited  commerce,  and  should  not  hesitate  to  restore 
your  captured  property,  but  ive  are  bound  by  the  text  of 
the  king's  instructions.  Where  they  do  not  apply,  we 
shall  restore,  as  we  did  during  the  American  war;  and  as 
soon  and  as  far  as  the  instructions  may  be  ivithdruivn,  so 
soon  and  so  far,  we  will  conform  our  decrees  to  the  law  of 

nations.'* 

Again  in  page  41,  Mr.  King  writes  more  concisely, 
though  indeed  not  more  explicitly  thus.  *'  It  has,  in  the 
strong  and  pointed  terms  of  Sir  William  Scott,"  (the  pre- 
sent judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  of  Great  Bri- 
tain,) *'  been  adjudged,  that  the  text  of  the  king's  instruc- 
tions is  the  true  rule  of  a  prize  court." 

The  conduct  of  the  British  naval  commanders,  upon 
the  foundation  of  the  order  of  council  of  January,  1794, 
and  on  the  plea  of  blockading  islands,  was  very  dreadful 
to  America.  It  is  certain  that  blockading  a.  fort,  a  castle, 
a  town,  or  a  port,  is  a  preccdented  and  common  measure. 
But  the  blockading  a  whole  groupe  or  chain  of  islafids,  at 
one  time,  and  the  blockade  of  an  entire  great  island,  like 
St.  Domingo,  is  a  new  stretch  of  English  naval  refinement. 
The  island  of  St.  Domingo  is  considerably  longer  than  the 
kingdom  of  England,  and  it  is  therefore  a  preposterous  af- 
fectation of  blockade,  to  put  all  the  ports  of  it  under  an  in- 
hibitory proclamation,  because  one  port  or  two  are  pro- 
perly and  really  blockaded.  A  ruinous  list  of  captures, 
however,  took  place  under  these  orders  and  proclamations 
of  blockade,  by  the  English,  during  the  year  1794,  and 
examples  as  wild,  as  loose,  and  as  injurious  as  possible  to 
the  French  and  to  the  neutrals,  were  set  by  the  Bermudi- 
ans,  Halifaxmen,  Providenccmen,  and  British  frigates  to 
the  French  cruisers.  .     . 

T„    *i —    ^^^..^   ^C  tUnt   trpov     eV»«^  trpntv  v\ras  hcsitatinJlly 

made  by  Mr.  Jay,  between  the  U.  States  and  Great  Bri- 
tain.    It  was  thought  only  better  than  war  by  persons 


'  ' 


»  I   t 


rampniet 
WtWWw 


SO 


i  , 


(     33     ) 

here  of  both  parties.  By  this  treaty  the  British,  by  mu- 
tual contract^  gave  to  the  Americans,  and  we  accepted 
several  new  rights,  to  trade  in  the  ivar,  with  the  English 
colonies  in  the  East  and  West  Indies  which  rights  were 
of  the  same  nature,  as  certain  other  rights  to  trade,  in  the 
war,  which  the  French  had  allowed  by  their  own  separate 
acts  to  the  Americans.  Those  rights  to  trade,  granted  by*' 
tlie  French,  were  constantly  made  the  avowed  grou?td  to 
confiscate  neutral  American  ships  and  cargoes  by  the  Brit- 
ish orders  of  council  and  courts  of  admiralty,  because  the 
neutral  Americans,  as  it  was  alleged^  thereby  undertook  to 
aid  the  French  colonial  agriculture.  Yet  great  complaints 
have  been  made,  that  the  French  have  condemned  Ame- 
rican vessels  for  giving  the  same  aid  to  islands  taken  from 
themselves  by  the  British,  though  we  had  guaranteed  those 
islands  by  the  treaty  of  1778,  then  in  force.  Here  the 
French  have  acted  much  more  favorably  to  the  neutrals 
than  the  English  ;  for  their  courts  do  not  hold  the  general 
English  principle,  viz.  to  condemn  vessels  from  the  East 
and  West  India  British  colonies,  because  the  privilege  of 
trading  with  those  colonies  was  given  to  us  in  the  war, 
and  was  not  previously  allowed  by  law,  in  peace.  Thus 
the  English  afford  an  example  extremely  injurious  to  the 
neutrals,  which  the  French  have  refrained  from  following, 
Tliis  is  an  important  and  undeniable  truth. 

It  is  an  essential  point  of  difference  in  the  conduct  of 
France  and  Great  Britain,  that  France  has  hitherto  admit-, 
ted  the  doctrine,  that  her  citizens  may  change  their  alle- 
giance and  become  American  sailors,  merchants,  and  ship- 
holders.  The  opposite  doctrine  is  held  by  England — and 
many  a  fine  ship  has  been  endangered  or  expensively  de- 
tained by  the  impressment  of  native  Englishmen,  married 
in  America,  and  become,  legally,  citizens  of  the  U.  States, 
Numerous  captures  have  taken  place,  because  the  cargoes 
were  the  property  of  Englishmen,  thus  become  Americans, 
who  had  bought  goods  in  places  belonging  to  the  enemies 
of  England.  The  English  courts  occasionally  deny  the 
American  citizenship,  of  such  former  English  suljjects,  and 
condemn  their  property,  because  they  are  persons  claimed 
as  British  subjects,  and  have  done  business  in  countries 
belonging  to  their  enemies.     To  a  couiUrv  like  ours,  inces- 

^  E 


(     34     ) 

santly  fcceivinpj  foi*eign  merchants  and  capital,  this  is  itnj 
immense  disaclvantaj^e,  arising  from  the  conduct  of  Eng- 
hind  alone,  and  not  follo\\'ed  by  France. 

England  may  be  fairly  considered,  as  having  forced 
America  into  an  entirely  new  act,  for  a  neutnil  power,  in 
making  the  provision  article  of  Mr.  Jay's  treaty  ;  an  article 
expensive,  dangerous,  and  even  capable  of  being  rendered 
fatal  to  France.  It  may  be  justly  asserted,  that  this  provi- 
sion article  is  without  precedent  in  the  annals  of  the  civi^ 
lized  world.  No  neutral  nation  ever  before  made  such  a 
contract  \\  ith  a  power  at  war.  It  is  said  to  be  advantageous 
to  us  and  to  France,  and  }'et  England  adopted  the  measure 
of  her  0A\  n  accord,  before  the  treaty,  and.  insisted  upon  it 
in  m^.king  tlie  ticaty  !  It  cannot  be  doubted,  that  England 
did  consitlcr  the  provision  article,  as,  on  the  whole,  ^er)' 
injurious  to  France  and  very  advantageous  to  herself,  or  she 
Mould  not  liave  been  so  tenacious  on  llic  subject. 

When  the  treaty  was  signed  in  London,  on  the  I9lh  of 
November,  1794,  the  orders  of  the  British  council,  which 
had  injured  and  disgraced  the  neutrals,  and  brought  on 
avowed  cfefcnshe  retaUatinns  from  France,  ^vcre  neither  re- 
voked nor  considered  as  superseded.  In  this  state  of  things, 
the  treaty  and  Mr.  Jay  arrived  in  America.  The  President 
received  the  treaty  early  in  March,  1795.  No  objection 
to  it  being  promulgated,  and  the  senate  being  called  to  re- 
ceive it  for  ratification,  there  was  every  reason  generally  to 
]^resume,  that  it  was  so  far  agreeable  to  the  President,  that 
he  would  offer  it,,  without  objection,  to  that  body  :  as  ii> 
deed  he  afterwards  did.  Such  being  the  appearance  of 
things  in  the  beginning  of  March,  it  may  be  fairly  presum- 
ed, that  the  British  government  relied  in  May  (two  months 
after  the  call  of  the  senate)  with  firm  confidence,  that  the 
treaty  would  be  ratified  before  any  thing,  England  might 
then  do,  eould  be  known  hi  America. 

In  this  state  of  things  the  new  orders  of  the  British  King 
in  council  of  May  1795,  for  carrying  hi  our  provision  vei>- 
sels,  were  issued.  To  judge  of  the  shock  to  France,  let 
us  remember  how  the  bare  rumour  paralized  the  late  Presi- 
dent Washington.  He  made  an  immediate  and  solemn 
stand,  and  caused  it  to  be  made  known  to  the  British  resi- 
dent minister,  that  he  luould  not  return  the  treaty  ivhilc. 
■  those  vrders  were  continued  in  force.     The  British  minister 


Pamphlet 


» 


(     35     ) 

liere,  suggested  the  advice  of  revoking  them  for  a  time, 
merely  to  give  a  factitious  moment  of  their  non-existence, 
for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  !  He  explicitly  proposed, 
hov.cver,  that  they  should  then  be  renewed  !  How  danfyerous 
to  the  neutrals  were  such  examples  of  British  conduct,  set 
before  the  government  of  France  !  The  English  minister, 
acting  thus,  is  publicly  known  to  have  solicited  the  execu- 
tive of  this  coimtry,  for  the  favour  of  being  made  the  bearer 
of  the  treaty  to  England.  Instead  of  continuing  to  be  in- 
formed, that  the  provision  orders  must  be  revoked  before 
the  treaty  would  be  signed  ;  the  President's  signature  was 
subscribed  to  the  instrument,  and  the  benefit  and  honor  of 
carrying  it  to  England  conferred  upon  the  British  ininister^ 
agreeably  to  his  request.  It  is  wiUi  infinite  pain,  that  such 
facts  arc  noticed.  But  they  are  really  necessary  to  show 
the  deportment  of  England,  and  her  title  to  injure  us  now 
by  repeating  her  own  original  liansactions  under  the  name 
of  Retaliations. 

The  British  orders  of  May,  1795,  may  be  deemed  faith- 
less to  us,  and  peculiarly  offensive  and  injurious  to  France, 
who  would  as  naturally  consider  them  as  explanatory  of  the 
British  sense  of  the  treaty,  as  our  own  President  is  known 
to  have  done.  It  is  years  since  the  publication  of  that  fact 
was  made  in  America  ;  witl\  what  degree  of  good  intention 
or  prudence  will  not  be  discussed.  The  captures  under 
these  orders  were  so  many,  that  at  the  end  of  twenty -two 
months,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  cases  \\'ere  carried 
into  the  British  high  court  of  admiralty  appeals.  These 
were  chiefly  our  European  adventures,  wherein  the  cargoes 
and  vessels  are  large  and  valuable.  Not  a  dollar  of  these 
is  saved  by  Mr.  Jay's  treaty  which  does  not  aftect  them.  It 
only  retrospectcd,  and  left  England  to  spoliate  at  will  in  all 
future  times. 


No.  VIII. 

Great  Britain  was  not  contented  to  make  and  execute  her 
own  ani  -neutral  orders  of  council  and  to  give  o])cn  indemni- 
ty for  those  breaches  of  public  law,  in  the  manner  we  have 
seen,  but  she  used  her  utmost  endeavours  in  the  year  1793, 
to  lead  other  powers  into  the  adoption  of  those  unprecedented 
and  illegitimate  provisions  in  her  own  convention  with  Bus- 


'1 


iii 


(     36     ) 

aia,  M'hich  wc  have  already  noticed.  Prussia,  Austria,  and 
Spain  were  (Iriuvii  by  Knglaiid  into  siuiilar  engagements, 
nrKl  America,  Genoa,  and  Tuscany  immediately  witntssed 
the  seperate  or  joint  eftorls  of  Great  Britain  and  her  lawless 
associates  to  coerce  Uicm  into  uii  injurious  and  de^iadipji; 
submission  to  this  English  project  oj  deprhing  the  opposite 
belligerent  of  all  the  benefits  of  neutral  commerce.  Lei  it  (k 
wcii  remembered,  that  this  act  was  commenced,  matured  and 
published  in  London^  wwdcr  the  offieiui  signatures  of  the 
British  and  Russian  ministers  on  the  25th  ofMarchj  1793, 
There^  then  and  thtts  was  the  unlawlul  Ibundation  actually 
laid  for  all  the  subsequent  violatious  ol'  neutral  rights,  by 
th's  great  anti-neutral  eonibination. 

-t  us  suppose  for  a  moment,  tlwt,  upon  tlic  receipt  of 
that  Anglo- Kussian  treaty  at  Paris,  in  the  close  of  March, 
1793,  whereby  the  Ficnch  were  attempted  to  be  deprived, 
by  mere  dint  of  naval  power,  of  all  rt^^jhtful  and  legitimate 
intercourse  with  neutrals,  the  government  of  France  had  in- 
stantly avowed  the  right,  the  duty  and  the  necessity  of  retali- 
ating the  measure,  in  form  and  substance,  and  had  immedi- 
ately passed  legislative  and  executive  acts,  directing  the  to- 
tal prevention  of  neutraUntcrcourse  with  England  and  her 
tlominions.  No  sober  and  honest  American  will  doubt, 
question,  or  deny,  that  such  a  law  and  decree  of  France  in 
1793,  would  have  been  justly  chargeable  to  Great  Britain,  and 
that  it  would  have  been  a  clear,  simple,  and  mere  retaliation 
on  the  part  of  the  French.  It  requires  but  little  efib/t  of  a 
sound  mind  and  an  honest  heart  then,  to  place  to  the  account 
ofthe  government  of  Great  Britain,  the  various  infractions  of 
our  neutral  rights  by  the  governments  of  France  and  her  al- 
lies, which  liaA'c  oecured  since  the  dates  of  diose  numerous 
and  stupendous  violations  of  those  rights  in  the  years  171% 
and  1793,  which  have  been  fwithfuliy  reprcbenttd  ni  the  for- 
mer numbers  of  these  pajjers. 

"  Thelaiu  of  nations y"*^  till  England  ihus  began,  was  the 
great  charter  of  American  peace — that  peace  the  God  of  na- 
ture gave,  and  we  estimate,  as  a  most  blessed  fruit  of  his  di- 
vine will.  We  had  but  to  be  just,  and  public  happiness  was 
ours! — but  alas,  the  scene  is  changed.  The  foundations  of 
the  law  of  nations  have  sustained  from  the  hands  of  England, 
in  her  tf^r/y  treaties  with  Russia,  Prussia,  Austria,  and  Spain, 
a  rude  and  deliberate  stroke,  intended  to  destroy  it — aijd 
with  that  law  to  destroy  our  peace. 


fsmpniai 


by 


(    ST    ) 

If  we  trace  the  conduct  of  Great  Britain  further,  similar 
evidences  Uiicken  armind  us.  l^t  us  proceed  in  the  painful, 
but  necessary  duty. — In  tlie  progress  of  tlie  war  of  1793, 
Spain  and  all  her  allies,  including  I'^ngland,  were  unable  to 
protect  her  from  the  vigorous  attacks,  wfiich  this  unprece- 
dented engagement  with  England  in  that  year  brought  upon 
her.  Slic  was  forced  to  abandon  her  English  connection  and 
to  save  herself  from  ruin  by  engaging  on  the  side  of  France. 
No  sooner  had  this  new  war  of  palpable  Spanish  necessity 
taken  place,  than  the  Englisli  admiral,  Nelson,  published  a 
proclamation,  dated  oiF  Cadiz,  declaring  to  the  neutrals,  that 
on  that  account,  *'  it  was  found  right  that  Spain  should  no 
longer  have  any  trade  !  !"  The  history  of  the  civilized  world 
never  before  recorded  an  instance  of  a  mere  blockading  ad- 
miral at  a  port,  attempting  to  proclaim  to  all  nations  that  a 
whole  kingdom  was  no  longer  to  have  any  trade,  to  the  to- 
tiil  consequent  and  illegitimate  destruction  of  neutral  rights. 
Will  any  man  wonder,  that  powerful  belligerent  monarchs 
should,  in  retaliation,  do  half  what  a  secondary  English  ad- 
miral has  thus  done  many  years  before  ? 

I'his  strange  and  extravagant  act  of  admiral  Nelson's  is  a 
part  of  that  monstrous  and  crude  mass  of  British  violations 
of  neutral  rights,  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  orders  of  their 
king  in  council,  in  the  proclamations  of  tlieir  generals  and 
admirals,  and  even  in  tlie  acts  of  parliament,*  under  the  two 
heads  of 

Blockades — ani — regulations  of  neutral  trad^. 

These  acts  of  the  British  government  are,  in  a  great  many 
very  important  instances,  and  lor  much  the  greater  part,  en- 
tirely unsupported  by  law  or  reason,  in  direct  violation  of 
the  law  of  nations,  and  indisputably  injurious  to  neutral  rights. 
As  they  apply  to  one  important  subject,  they  are  most  accu- 
rately, faithfully  and  ably  characterized  in  the  following  con- 
cise summary  of  the  English  conduct,  in  the  pamphlet  of 
( 1806,)  written  by  Mr.  Madison ;  a  work  which  every  neu- 
tral statesman  and  merchant,  and  ever}'  honest  belligerent, 
should  carefully  read  and  well  consider. 

**  The  system  of  Great  Britain,  (says  this  invaluable  pam- 
*'  phlet)  may  therefore  now  be  considered,  as  announced 
*'  to  all  the  worl^i,  without  disguise,  and  by  the  most  solemn 
"  acts  of  her  government.     Her  navy  having  destroyed 


^1 


r 


», 


(.   as    ) 

-  the  trade  of  her  enemies,  as  weU  between  the  mother  coiin- 
'   try  and  their  colonies,  as  between  the  former  and  neutral 
countries^  and  her  courts,  by  putting  an  end  to  re-exporta- 
^^  t.ons  from  neutral  countries,  reducing  the  importatien  iii- 
^  to  these  to  the  mere  amount  of  their  own  consumption 
the  immense  surplus  of  productions  accumulating  in  the 
'  American  jwssessions  of  her  enemies  can  find  no  outlet 
*•  but  through  the  free  ix)rts"  (of  the  British  WestJndies  ) 
'  provided  lor  it,  nor  any  other  market  than  the  British  mai^- 
ket,  and  those  to  which  she  finds  it  her  interest  to  distri- 
bute  It :  with  a  view  to  which  she  not  only  allows  her  ene- 
mies  to  trade  with  lier  possessions,  but  allows  her  subjects 
to  trade  with  her  enemies.     And  thus,  in  defiance  as  well 
'   of  her   treason  laws,  and  of  her  laws  of  trade,  as  of  the 
rights  of -neutrality,  under  the  law  of  nations,  we  find  her 
111  the  just  and  emphatic  language  of  the  President,  tak- 
■    mg  to  herself,  by  an  inconsistency,  at  Mhich  reason  re- 
volts,  a  commerce  with  her  own  enemy,  Avhich  she  denies 
^'^'  to  a  neutral,  on  the  ^mnd  of  its  aiding  an  enemy  in  the 
w  ar. 

Could  it  have  been  credited  of  Great-Britain  or  of  anv 
other  respectable  government,  that  it  would  have  passed 
aws  to  promote  and   facilitate  trade  by  her  own  subjects 
between  the  British  dominions,  and  the  dominions  and  ports 
oi  l^raiice,  after  entering  into  four  solemn  treaties  with  the 
great  i^uropean  states  to  prevent  the  neutrals  from  trading 
With  those  very  French  ports  and  dominions,  under  the  pen 
iilty  ol  a  degrading,  wicked  nnd  >;j/ confiscation  ?  Can  it 
be  expected  by  Great-Britain,  that  the  nt  utral  world  will 
ever  submit  to  the  substitution  of  so  monstrous  a  system  of  ' 
mmopolistng  inconsistency  and  oppression  for  the  eternal 
justice  ot  the  laws  of  nations. 

The  hostile  influence  of  the  government  of  Great-Britain 
upon  neutral  trade,  Has  been  manifested  in  another  form 
particularly  unjust,  injurious  and  offensive.  From  the  ear- 
lest  time  the  British  courts  of  admiralty  have  burdened 
both  acquitted  and  condemned  vessels  and  cargoes  with 
costs  and  charges,  fatal  to  ordinary  adventures  ;*  and  every 
siiao^i  oi  inconsistent  opinion,  from  acquittal  to  condemna- 
tion in  cases  turning  on  the  same  principle,  has  marked  the 

Tht  5-°°.°  ^'^  "'."^  charges  have  been  imposed  on  an  acowV/er/ vessol 
The  object  must  be  to  pamper  their  navy  officers,  and  ZZ"t:^% 
^r..-,^ii,  u;ia  at  ilie  sitme  time  to  cramp  neutral  trade.        ' ' ' ' 


»       ) 


'airipiiivi 


(     39     ) 

decrees  of  the  judges  themselves.  The  more  high  and 
proud  are  the  claims  of  the  British  judiciary  department  to 
honour  and  confidence,  in  its  dispensations  of  justice  at 
home,  the  deeper  is  the  stain  of  such  facts,  in  their  i.<;lmin- 
istration  of  law  to  neutral  suitors. 

Such  as  we  have  stated  in  these  papers  was  the  conduct 
of  the  British  government  towards  her  belligerent  adver- 
sary and  the  neutral  states  in  the  first  months  of  the  war  of 
'93.  So  did  she  teach  that  adversary,  by  her  o\vn  illegi- 
timate example,  to  impede,  to  harass,  to  despoil,  to  mulct, 
to  diminish,  and  to  destroy  the  commerce  of  neutrals — 
so  did  she  induce  and  teach  Spain,  Russia,  Prussia  and 
Austria.  So  did  she  coerce  the  United  States,  Genoa  and 
Tuscany  ;  and  so  did  slie  attempt  Denmark  and  Sweden. 
So  did  she  still  continue  to  act  towards  us  in  the  month  of 
November,  180G,  when  the  government  of  France  adopted 
its  act  of  avowed,  actual  and  mere  retaliation.  For  this  act 
of  France,  erroneously  supposed  at  the  first  to  be  a  total 
prohibition  of  neutral  trade  with  the  British  kingdoms,  Eng- 
land  sets  up,  against  the  universal  law  of  nations,  and  a 
new  formed  treaty  with  the  United  States,  a  monstrous  pre- 
tension to  a  right  to  retaliate  ;  profiting  of  her  oivn  wrong, 
ag-ainst  the  maxims  of  our  common  law,  and  the  absolute 
rules  of  reason  and  justice.  The  great  original  parent-ag- 
gressor  and  seducer  of  Europe,  in  the  moment  of  a  mere 
retaliation,  inferior  fiir  to  her  acts  of  provocation,  and  drawn 
by  years  of  n^valconduct  on  herself,  preposterously  claims 
from  that  retaliation  a  right  to  repeat  her  innumerable  male- 
factions  against  the  most  useful  and  necessary  oi'  her  ncutrd 
friends  !  The  law  of  nations  she  had  long  and  often  torn,  in 
public,  to  miserable  tatters,  and  our  new  treaty  was  not  to 
bind  her,  because  she  had  goaded  France  into  her  own  nevi 
system  of  co?nmercial  blockade.  On  us,  the  written  letter 
of  the  treaty  articles  and  the  old  fashioned  rules  of  the  la\v 
of  nations  A\'ere  to  continue  absolut.-ly  obligatory.  The 
treaty  Avith  England,  though  suspended'  or  aniiihilatcd  there 
by  a  convenient  rider  of  licr  dictation,  was  to  be  and  con- 
tinue ^'  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,''''  in  the  United  States. 
Thus  did  PLngland  prove,  that  slie  had  repeated  her  injuries 
till  our  apparent  insensibility  caused  her  to  believe  mc  Iwd 
no  feeling;  and  that  she  had  deceived  us,  by  the  color  of 
law  in  her  council  orders,  and  of  regularity  in  her  pretended 
blockades,,  till  we  had  no  sense.     Tlie  lu>pcs  oi'  the  twa. 


(   *o   ) 

countries  are  brought  now  into  a  narrow  ground,  capable  of 
fair  and  thorough  explanation.  We  are  two  nations.  Both 
independent. — The  universal  prescriptive  law  of  nations 
must  govern  both,  as  to  men  and  things.  No  dispensation 
can  be  claimed  by  either  party,  as  of  right.  We  can  yield  no 
solid  provision  of  the  law  of  nations,  with  safety  or  innocence. 
The  times  require  of  us  an  enlightened,  a  sincere,  and  an 
undaunted  neutrality. 


No.  IX. 


It  may  be  well  for  the  United  States  calmly  and  closely 
to  inquire  and  consider  what  would  have  been  the  state  of 
things  bctw  ecn  them  and  Great  Britain,  if  the  treaty  of  De- 
cember 1800,  had  been  perfectly  satisfactory  in  all  its  arti- 
cles, and  if  it  had  been  mutually  ratified,  without  the  at- 
tempted British  rider. 

From  the  state  of  things  in  tlie  month  of  December  1 806, 
immediately  before  its  date,  and  from  the  course  and  con- 
dition of  things  since  and  at  present,  we  could  not  have 
expected,  that  it  would  have  made  any  diiference  in  the  con- 
duct of  Great  Britain,  beyond  the  strict  dictates  of  its  com- 
ponent articles  and  provisions.  In  all  those  important, 
numerous  and  diversified  cases  and  circumstances,  which 
the  treaty  did  not  contemplate  and  which  no  treaty  can  em- 
brace or  effectually  provide  for,  in  all  those  cases  resting 
merely  upon  the  universal  law  of  nations,  we  should  remain 
subject  to  the  usual  English  operations,  founded  on  grounds 
like  her  stipulations  of  1793  with  Russia,  covered  by  her 
act  of  the  17th  June  1793  and  its  continuance  in  1803,  and 
exemplified  in  her  orders  of  council  from  June  1793  to 
January  1807,  M'ith  the  fluctuating  principles  of  her  admi- 
ralty judges,  and  the  habitual  extortions  of  the  other  officers 
of  those  tribunals.  If  an  effectual  remedy  for  the  incessant 
aberrations  of  Britain  from  public  law,  could  not  be  secur- 
ed, a  treaty,  which  would  have  left  us  open  to  the  usual 
discretionary  repetition  of  them,  in  virtue  of  the  despotic 
pretension  of  the  English  crown,  to  make  rules  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  their  courts  in  the  condemnation  of  our  proj)er- 
ty,  Avould  liaVe  subjected  us  to  the  most  serious  evils.  We 
should  have  been  bound  even  in  our  own  courts,  by  the 
law  of  nations  and  the  ratified  treatv,  while  an  order  of  the 
King  and  Council  would  direct  British  captures  and  ensure 
British  condemnations  of  our  ships  and  cargoes.     The  re- 


> 


rampniei 

BiiHltr 


pabic  of 
.    Both 

nations 
msatioii 
yield  no 
locence. 

and  an 


1  closely 
state  of 
^ofDe- 
its  arti- 
t  the  at- 

irl806, 
nd  con- 
lOt  have 
the  con- 
its  com- 
portant, 
,  which 
can  em- 
i  resting 
L  remain 
grounds 
[  by  her 
03 ;  and 
1793  to 
r  admi- 
'  officers 
iicessant 
e  secur- 
ic  usual 
despotic 
the  gov- 
projKjr- 
ils.  We 
,  by  tlie 
r  of  the 
I  ensure 
The  re- 


(     41     ) 

petition"  of  the  orders  of  June  1793,  at  the  first  moment  in 
IV 95,  that  it  was  supposed  Mr.  Jay's  treaty  was  ratified, 
and  the  attempt  in  Decem|Der  last  to  release  themselves  from 
the  obligations  of  the  new  formed  treaty  in  the  very  act  of 
exchanging  it,  too  plainly  instruct  us  what  could  and  what 
would  be  done.  Unpleasing  indeed  is  it  to  believe,  that  the 
j',eneral  order  of  things  in  any  foreign  country,  is  such  as  to 
forbid  the  hope — as  to  bar  the  possibility  of  a  satisfactory- 
arrangement  with  her.  Yet  such,  it  is  sincerely  believed, 
will  be  found  to  be  ih^  factitious  state  of  things,  which  the 
several  administrations  and  legislatures  of  Great  Britain  have 
created  there,  since  the  year  1791.  This  serious  idea  is  not 
suggested  as  an  attack  upon  her,  but  as  an  important  re- 
^crciion  upon  those  historical  truths,  which  have  been  sub- 
mitted in  these  papers. 

What  then  is  to  be  done.  It  is  easier  for  humble  indi- 
viduals, and  even  for  able  and  responsible  public  men  to 
see  immense  evils  than  to  devise  a  cure.  Yet  the  present 
case  seems  to  call  for  one.  The  simple,  though  vast  evil 
of  our  situation  is,  that //^^  laws^  which gcoerned  the  repub" 
lie  of  independent  states  before  1792  ha'oe  been^  since  that  pe- 
riod^ in  an  uninterrupted  course  of  infraction  and  suspen- 
sion by  the  nation  with  whom  our  differences  depend.  To 
bring  things  back  to  that  sound  and  I'ight  state,  which  our 
mutual  honor  and  interests  require  and  admit, — the  resto- 
ration of  the  uaiversal  law  of  nations  to  its  proper  sanctity, 
is  all  that  is  necessary.  All  without  this  will  be  nugatory 
for  us  and  will  issue  in  sure  disappointment  and  new  vex- 
ations, embarrassments  and  injuries.  It  is  vain  to  hope 
for  either  peace  or  honor,  or  profit,  while  any  foreign  go- 
vernment undertakes  to  legislate  for  the  neutral  states  by  a 
sole  unauthorised  executive  order.  The  commercial  spirit 
of  England  has  been  pampered  with  an  inordinate  quantity 
of  the  richest  food.  "  The  single  company  of  merchants  of 
E7iglandy*^  for  example,  "  trading  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good 
//(?j^t%"  have  expelled  all  the  nations  of  the  civiliaed 
woridfromthcPeninsulaof  India,  and  have  laid  at  the  feet 
of  its  own  stupendous  trading  monopoly  eighty  millions  of 
ihto  eii slaved  natives!  England  has  annihilated  the  commerce 
of  its  European  enemies  in  every  sea,  and  turned  its 
streams  all  upon  itself.     It  has  for  several  years  fixed  its 


<    42    ) 

eyes  upon  the  trade  of  America,  the  merited  reward  of  the 
pohtical  morahty  of  our  civil  institutions  and  of  our  love 
of  peace.  We  have  lately  seen  or  now  examined  the  sys- 
tem, which  England  has  devised  to  subject  our  persons, 

our  ships  and  our  cargoes  to  seizure  and  confiscation 

The  insufferable  outrage  on  the  frigate  Chesapeake  is  but 
a  single  item  in  the  list  of  British  injuries.  We  desire 
not  to  inflame,  but  we  should  deprecate  half  cures  for  an- 
cient,  inveterate  and  multiplied  sores.  Let  not  either 
England  or  America  deceive  herself  with  the  hope  of  a 
real  or  permanent  harmony,  without  the  adoption  of  a  re- 
medy, which  will  reach  the  whole  disease. 

If  England  shall  not  return  to  the  ground  of  friendship 
and  justice,  under  the  law  of  nations,  what  is  to  be  done  ? 
It  may  be  wise,  calmly  and  thoroughly  to  consider  the 
nature  of  our  present  intercourse  and  to  discontinue  all 
such  parts  of  it  as  may  produce  good  effects  on  her,  with- 
out injuring  ourselves.  We  may  find  it  wise  to  prohibit 
the  entry  of  all  their  ships,  both  public  and  private -of  all 
their  rum— of  all  their  East  India  cottons  and  silks— of  all 
their  woollen  manufactures— their  leathern  goods^— their 
gram  liquors— their  silks  and  linens— their  line  glass— 
and  such  other  goods  as  careful  reflection  may  suggest. 
We  may  forbid  their  subjects  to  trade— perhaps  to  remain 
here— and  in  such  manner  evince  our  just  dissatisfaction 
at  their  deportment  to^vards  us. 

We  iiear,  upon  every  occasion  of  such  suggestions,  de- 
clarations that  England  will  make  war  for  such  treatment. 
She  shuts  us  out  of  every  port  she  chooses,  refuses  all  our 
manufactures,  and  much  of  our  produce,  presses  our  sea- 
men,  mulcts  our  lawful  trade  in  her  courts,  violates  our 
flag,  and  incessantly  commits  a  long  list  of  other  wrongs, 
and  if  we  adopt  measures  to  show  our  just  displeasure  or  to 
compensate  the  damage,  she  threatens  war  !  She  injures 
—much— deeply— variously,— and  will  make  war  if  you 
take  measures  of  remedy  r  If  England  or  any  other  coun- 
try will  so  make  war,  we  ought  undauntedly  to  meet  the 
conflict.    But  her  government  ought  to  take  good  care. 
Unjust  and  unprofitable  wars  bring  public  discontent.  All 
tlie  neutral  states— all  the  impartial  world  must  be  against 
s^isgland  on  this  oecabion,  and  with  America.  Her  wlioic 


(     43     ) 

f 

injury  to  us  will  be  some  plunder  and  suspension  of  ou^ 
trade.  Weshallsoonfeedonhers  in  ourturn.  Wesballtak 
from  her,  with  certainty,  much  of  her  present  manufactur- 
ing system.  We  shall  do  much  better  tliin  in  the  revolu- 
tionary war.  Our  country  will  be  more  comfortable  and 
prosperous  than  any  other,  and  we  cannot  help  the  loss  of 
that  honest  and  beloved  peace,  which  England  will  once 
more,  have  taken  from  us.  Our  operations  against  the 
dependencies  of  England  will,  if  we  are  not  Hiistaken, 
greatly  surprise  her,  in  more  than  one  quarter,  and  on 
more  than  one  occasion. 

In  case  of  a  war,  fhus  brought  on  against  law,  justice  and 
reason  by  Gf^at  Britain,  she  will  fall  under  the  deepest  and 
most  settled  odiujaa  in  this  country.  Ancient  prejudices 
will  be  renewed.  Former  wounds  will  be  again  opened. 
New  hatreds  will  arise.  Never  will  true  reconcileinent 
grow  again,  in  the  lives  of  the  present  generation.  The 
name  of  Great  Britain  has  gene  forth  with  much  sensation 
to  many  nations.  Peals  of  indignant  resentment  have 
reverberated  from  the  coasts  of  the  Altantic  to  the  side  of 
the  Danish  Sound.  These  have  been  again  driven  to  the 
shores  of  the  Marmora,  and  the  coasts  of  Egypt.  Violent 
discontents  against  England  have  spread  in  many  direc- 
tions,  and  if  she  forces  this  reluctant  country  into  such  a 
war,  the  world  will  be  convinced,  that  the  subversion  of 
her  commerce,  the  source  of  her  perverted  navy,  is  ne- 
cessary to  the  peace  of  the  earch. 


No.  X. 
Among  the  earliest,  the  most  unlawful  and  the  mos* 
oifensive  violations  of  American  neutrality  by  the  British 
navy,  was  their  practice  of  forcing  our  citizens  into  their 
belligerent  marine  service.     It  merits  a  place  therefore, 
and  not  a  small  one,  among  the  numerous  supports  of  the 
high  charge  we  have  made.     It  will  be  remembered,  that  ' 
Mr.  Jay  labored,  and  that  he  labored  in  vain,  so  early  as 
the  year  1794,  to  place  this  matter  upon  satisfactory  ground. 
Great  Britain,  combined  with  other  powers,  as  she  pro- 
^cssea  m  ner  maniicsiu  ui  -x^fuvutfci,  ii-^»  ^•^-  »v  ..— --  — 
iiarchy  in  fi-ance,  compelled  every  impressed  American  to 


(  44  } 

,  i  ?^*,2Sainst  the  vital  principles  ."  our  constitutions  dur- 

,  ing  the  existence  of  the  Fre        ,    .ublic.     Washington, 

i  Zf    T^"  ?796.  avowed  tot.       .rid,  that  he  was  atLh- 

{  ed  to  the  princ^les  and  struggles  of  the  French  revolu- 

tion,  because  they  were  similar  to  our  own.  These  im- 
pressnient?  subjected  us  to  the  hatred,  the  contempt,  the 
retaliations  of  the  French.  They  once  meditated  the  ex- 
ecution ot  men,  whom  we  should  so  suffer  to  be  used 
against  their  country. 

^  The  safety,  the  respectability  and  the  political  morality 
ot  the  U.  States  require  of  us  an  intelligent  and  faithful 
adherence  to  the  law  of  nations  in  our  foreign  relations. 
1  he  prudence  of  this  country  and  the  candor  of  Great  Brit- 
am  should  concur  in  asserting  and  admitting  the  truth 
and  the  importance  of  this  position.  The  belligerents 
have  respectively  a  right  to  keep  the  neutrals  in  the  course 
ot  this  universal  public  law:  and  the  neutrals  have  an 
equal  right  to  keep  the  belligerents  in  the  same  course. 

We  have  no  right,  as  neutrals,  to  permit,  or  to  cause, 
our  citizens  to  enter  the  belligerent  armies  or  navies.  The 
be  ligerents  have  no  right  to  force  those  citizens  into  their 
battalions  or  their  ships  of  war.  In  doing  so  chev  would 
grossly  violate  and  endanger  our  neutrality.  They  would 
render  us  at  once  odious  and  contemptible.     An  unfound- 

?^/c    "\,?^  ^^^  ®"^^'^  parliament  cost  us  our  peace  in 
1775.     We  say  unfounded,  because  it  was  against  the 
constitutional  law  of  that  day,  and  has  been  deliberately 
and  explicitly  abandoned  in  the  case  of  Ireland,  by  the  re- 
peal of  the  British  statute  respecting  that  kingdom,  called 
the  declaratory  act,"  which  asserted  the  right  of  the 
English  parliament  to  bind  Ireland,  in  all  cases  whatsoever. 
Ihe  sanr»e  illegitimate  principle,  and  a  similar  declaratory 
act  produced  the  war  of  the  American  revolution  and  ail 
3ts  immense  expenses.     It  is  well  known,  that,  in  the 
course  of  that  war,  vast  expenditures  were  made  by  this 
country  and  that  besides  all  she  could  pay,  she  labored 
long  under  a  debt  of  seventy  millions  pf  dollars.     We  re- 
peat It.-  An  unfounded  claim  of  Great  Britain  cost  Ame- 
rica  the  war  of  1775  and  the  immense  losses  and  expen- 
-,„..  ...  ,,,^  .V  r  viuuuii.      i  nis  is  not  mentioned  to  produce 
irritation,  but  tg.  nourish  a  virtuous  and  salutary  spirit  of 


Pamphlet 


(     *5    ) 

union  at  home,  and  to  excite  considerations  of  justice,  and 
an  honourable  prudence  in  Great  Britain. — She  again  pre- 
fers an  unfounded  claim  upon  this  country. -^She  does 
not  declare  by  law,  but  she  intelligibly  declares  by  prac- 
tice, that  she  has  a  right  to  enter  the  ships  of  America  for 
the  purpose  of  impressing  seamen.  We  say  after  our  go- 
vernment, with  a  confidence,  calm  and  sincere,  that  no 
nation  has  such  a  right  against  our  ships.  We  ask  with- 
out heat,  the  British  public  officers  and  subjects  here,  or 
their  government  and  counsellors  in  Europe,  to  point  out 
a  single  clause  or  section  of  the  law  of  nations,  which 
countenances,  or  even  contemplates  such  a  right.  We 
affirm  that  no  treaty,  no  British  writer  on  the  law  of  na- 
tions, ever  sanctioned  this  unfounded  claim.  We  assert, 
that  '*  the  right  of  search,"  under  the  law  of  nations,  is 
extended  by  no  treaty,  no  author,  beyond  goods  contra- 
band of  war,  goods  of  belligerents  and  military  enemies. 
We  calmly  challenge  the  ablest  and  the  most  learned  Eng* 
lishman,  here  or  in  Europe,  to  shew  that  any  treaty  or  any 
writer  on  the  la'v  of  nations  of  any  country,  has  ever  men- 
tioned a  right  oi  a  belligerent  to  enter  a  neutral  ship  t* 
search, 

I.  For  enemies,  not  military : 

II.  For  the  subjects  of  the  searching  power : 

III.  For  passengers  of  any  nation: 

IV.  For  seamen  of  any  nation  in  the  service  of  the  neu- 
tral power,  or  of  its  merchants. 

The  law  of  nations  authorises  not  the  entry  of  neutral 
ships  for  such  purposes.  The  law  of  nations  must  gov- 
ern. It  is  inadmissible  for  one  power  to  say  they  will  not 
ever  give  up  practices,  for  which  they  can  shew  no  law. 
It  is  justly  offensive.  It  is  deeply  immoral.  It  is  even  a 
cause  of  war.  It  is  destructive  of  the  neutrality  of  nations. 
It  is  public  despotism.  It  is  to  trample  on  the  law  of  na^ 
tions  and  tread  the  rights  of  neutrals  under  foot.  It  is  aa 
injury  to  adversary  belligerents.  It  is  a  breach  of  neu- 
trality in  nations  at  peace  to  suffer  it  from  one  party.  It 
produces  disgusts,  resentments,  violence  and  war. 

It  is  in  vain  to  plead,  that  Americans  and  Ensrlishmen 
appear  alike  and  speak  the  same  language,  because  the  in» 
disputable  principle  of  law  is,  that  no  belligerent  has  a 


:i\ 


(     4G     ) 

right  to  enter  a  neutral  ship  to  search  for  persons,  who  arc 
not  really  military  enemies.  Let  not  violent  assertions 
and  determinations  be  resorted  to.  Let  not  the  alleged 
necessities  of  belligerents  be  pleaded  to  the  exclusron  of 
the  greater  necessities  of  neutrals.  It  is  far  more  neces- 
sary  for  the  United  States,  not  to  give  just  cause  of  war 
to  the  continent  of  Europe,  than  it  is  for  Great  Britain  to 
press  unlawfully  passengers  and  seamen  to  man  ten  or  fif- 
teen sail  of  sloops  of  wir  and  frigates. 

It  will  not  be  fair  to  say  that  these  papers  are  partial  to 
France,  or  against  England.     We   contend  only  for  the 
laws  of  neutrality  and  of  sacred  peace. — We  mourn  over 
the  wounds  of  mangled  humanity Our  faithful  govern- 
ment exerts  its  parental  can;  to  save  us  from  those  evils.-^ 
It  IS  for  this,  among  many  otlier  causes,  dear  to  our  hearts. 
We  approve  its  conduct  with  all  our  minds—with  all  our 
souls.     Let  not  our  fellow  men  of  iuigland  any  longer 
persevere  in  error.     They  have  not  a  shadow  of  public 
law  for  impressment  in  our  ships.     It  is  not  the  interest 
*)f  England  to  render  it  necessary  for  America  to  become 
a  belligerent  for  unlawful  injuries.     Our  government  has 
tshewii  temperate,  and  just  dispositions  towards   Great 
Britain.     Its  members  are  bound  by   the   inviolable  res- 
traints  of  written  constitutions,  to  do  right  and  to  avoid 
doing  wrong — We  have  no  power  or  influence  here  to  as- 
sure the  passage  of  acts  of  indemnity,  as  in  other  coun- 
tries  :  The  laws  reign  here  over  the  heads  of  our  public 
agents.     I^'iat  Lex—ruat  coelum  is  the  constitutional  mot- 
to of  the  chief  American  functionary.      He  may  yield 
himself   to   no   considerations    unknown    to   the   laws. 
He  cannot,  nor  is  he,   wc  confidently  and  affectionately 
trust,  in  anywise  disposed  to  surrender  the  liberties,  the 
comforts,  the  neutrality  of  our  faithful  and  intrepid  mar- 
iners  to  the  illegitimate  claims  of  foreign  nations.      He 
well  knows,  that  our  oppressions,  in  this  form,  since  the 
year  1 792,  have  proceeded  fix)m  G.  Britain.     No  other  na- 
tions  have  done  to  us  this  pernicious  and  humiliating 
wrong  ;  this  illegitimate,  this  vast  injury.     Great  Britain 
does  this  insulting  wrone*  to  no  other  nation:.     She  never 
enters  Danish  or  Swedish,  or  German^  or  Russian  ship* 


! 


{    ^7    ) 

to  impress  her  subjects  in  them  ;  though  she  well  know* 
many  of  those  subjects  are  on  board  of  those  vessels 
and  they  arc  easily  distinguishable  there.  The  pretence 
of  difficulty  to  distinguish  Americans  from  Britons  sinks 
to  nought  before  this  single  fact,  for  England  docs  not 
«buse  the  right  of  search  by  attempting  to  impress  in  other 
neutral  vessels.  These  insults  and  injuries  are  all  for  us  a- 
lone.  This  remark  is  not  intended  to  aggravate.  If  there 
be  in  it  ought  of  aggravation,  it  consists  in  its  weighty  truth. 

The  object  of  these  papers  is  to  contribute  to  place  af- 
fairs bctw  cen  Great  Britain  and  America  on  the  only  just, 
firm  and  satisfactory  ground  on  which  they  can  ever  be 
rested — the  ground  of  indisputable  public  Law,  It  is  the 
law  of  nations  only,  which  prevents  a  foreign  ship  of  war 
from  impressing  sailors  and  passengers  out  of  unarmed 
vessels,  in  the  bays  and  rivers  of  neutral  countries.  '  It  is 
the  same  law  of  nations,  which  protects  the  neutral  vessel 
from  being  boarded /or  impressment  on  the  high  seas.  An- 
nul or  violate  that  law  on  the  ocean,  and  you  may  witness 
its  violation  in  our  narrow  seas,  our  bays,  our  rivers,  and 
our  ports.  Certain  and  known  law  is  as  necessary  to  the 
peace  and  harmony  of  nations,  as  of  civil  societies. 

Great  Britain  prides  herself  in  her  courts  of  Common 
Law.  If  those  courts  or  her  admiralty  tribunals  would 
not  give  remedy  to  the  owners  and  master  of  a  violated 
neutral  ship,  lost  by  impressment  of  its  seamen,  that  cause 
of  former  honest  pride  must  lamentably  and  scandalously 
fail.  There  is  no  instruction  of  the  crown — ever:  no  or- 
der of  the  king  and  council— those  arbitrary  substitutes  for 
legitimate  rules — to  warrant  **  the  detention"  of  passen- 
gers and  seamen  and  carrying  them  in  for  legal  adjudica- 
tion or  impressment,  American  citizens,  fathers  of  fam- 
ilies, are  torn  from  their  peaceful  and  lawful  occupations 
in  contempt  of  the  luw  of  nations,  because  they  may  be 
Englishmen !  ! — Reason  is  reversed. — An  Engli'ih  sailor 
might  well  remain  free  from  impressment,  because  an 
English  navy  officer  could  not  distinguish  him  iiom  au 
American.  But  it  is  preposterous  to  say  they  may  law- 
fully take  an  American,  because  they  cannot  distinguish 
him  from  an  Englishman.  >Tis  to  subject  our  indepen- 
dent nation  to  a  British  general  warrant.  Can  the  Ame- 
rican officers  enter  English  ships  and  impress  their  seamen 


I  I 


) 

i'l 


,1  fu 

li 


(     48     ) 

because  they  loek  like  Americans^  It  is  believed,  that  tlie 
English  sea  captains,  mates,  and  sailors  would,  in  such  a 
cuse,  do  those  things,  which  were  proposed  in  the  recent 
bill  of  a  late  Senator  of  Maryland.  The  government,  peo- 
ple, merchants,  and  seamen  of  England  would  be  trans- 
ported  with  resentment  were  the  navy  officers  of  the  U. 
States  to  impress  the  crews  of  English  merchantmen  on 
tiie  coast  of  Great  Britain. 

This  business  has  reached  a  stage,  as  it  regards  the 
rights  of  the  btlligerents  and  the  rights  and  duties  of  neu- 
tral America,  which  requires  the  calm  advancement  and 
firm  maintenance  of  the  whole  truth.  It  is  of  no  conse- 
quence to  this  argument,  that  our  laws  do  not  warrant  the 
impressment  of  seamen,  for  if  they  are  exempted  /lerCy  by 
**  common  law"  principles,  they  are  equally  exempted 
by  them  in  England,  and  we  had  hopes  that  this  consid- 
eration would  have  secured  us  justice  on  the  subject  of 
our  mariners,  v/hen  the  whig  names  of  Fox  and  Grey  were 
found  among  the  negociators.  But  it  iii  not  the  least  of 
the  mortifications  of  cue  day,  that  the  whigs  of  England 
have  been,  at  least,  the  involuntary  framcrs  of  a  treaty, 
which  leaves  the  seamen  of  this  single  neutral  state  ex- 
posed to  the  despotic  operation  of  British  impressment. 
If  there  be  ?nv  thing  righteous  in  law  or  sacred  in  justice  ; 
if  there  be  an  y  meaning,  any  sincerity,  in  the  allusion  to  a 
community  of  language,  blood,  morals,  and  religion,  we 
may  still  hope  that  an  arbitrary  power  over  the  bodies  of 
unarmed  men,  committing  themselves  to  the  protection  of 
our  neutral  flag,  will  be  quickly  and  completely  abandoned 
by  Great  Britain.  As  yet  however,  the  actual  aggression 
of  British  impressment  remains  among  the  earliest,  the 
most  dangerous,  the  most  offensive,  and  the  most  inju- 
rious evidences  of  the  high  charge  we  have  ventured  to 
make. 

No.  XI. 

An  accusation,  so  strong  and  so  solemn,  as  that  we 
have  openly  made  against  the  British  government,  should 
be  accompanied  by  the  most  explicit  allegations,  the  fair- 
est truths,  and  the  soundest  arguments  on  our  part. 
These  considerations  may  serve  to  excuse  our  attempt  tQ 


i     ! 


Pamphlet 


) 


(     *9     ) 

iidd  to  the  discussions  on  the  subject  of  impressment  ccr- 
t:«m  observations,  which  mig;ht  not  be  convenient  between 
mmistvra  of  state,  though  unc.':ceptionablc  and  useful  from 
a  free  press.  In  doing  thiii,  perspicuity  will  often  retiuire 
a  repetition  of  the  official  arguments. 

We  present  to  our  readers  with  confidence,  the  position 
of  our  government,  thai  the  law  of  nations  does  not  au- 
thoriz«^  a  belligerent  power  to  enter  a  neutral  ship  on  the 
high  s'-as,  for  the  purpose  of  searching  for,  or  taking  out 
any  persons  but  military  en'^mies.  Such  an  act  cannot 
be  justified  by  the  proper  or  local  laws  or  constitutions  of 
a  particular  belligerent  country,  because  foreign  munici- 
pal laws  do  not  affect  neutral  ships,  and  persons  out  of 
the  proper  jurisdiction  of  the  power  at  war.  Nor  can  it  be 
admitted  that  any  concurrence  of  municipal  laws,  would 
render  a  principle  valid  in  public  Law.  * 

These  opinions  are  unreservedly  displayed,  because 
they  are  believed  to  be  correct,  after  examination  and  re- 
flection, and  because  they  can  be  counter  argued,  if  wrong. 
But  if  England  had  a  right  to  impress  her  own  subjects  at 
sea,  she  ought  to  abstain  from  it  on  board  of  American 
ships,  before  she  can  asceitain  them.  **  The  difficulty  to 
distinguish''  Americans  from  Britons  is  an  ingenuous  turn 
of  expression.  'J'he  correct  language  is  that,  in  every 
case,  wherein  the  British  cannot  ascertain  their  subjects, 
from  their  similarity  to  our  citizens,  there  exits  an  f/wM/xrr- 
aW<?  impediment  to  the  execution  of  this  extreme  person- 
al  process  of  impressment. 

No  officer,  with  the  clearest  and  strongest  warrant,  can 
conscicnciously,  safely,  or  lawfully  take  hold  of  any  per- 
son in  virtue  of  such  warrant,  without  first  ascertaining  his 
man.  By  the  common  law,  the  man,  wrongly  taken  in 
such  case,  may  resist  to  death  withoutjbeing  giiilty  of  mur- 
der. If  held,  he  will  recover  damages  for  false  imprison- 
ment. If  every  Englishman,  falsely  taken  within  the  Isl- 
and of  Great  Britain,  can  thus  have  remedy  for  the  wrong 
against  the  high  sheriff  of  London,  or  the  officers  of  the 

P  *  No  other  pbwer  has  been  in  the  practice  of  impressments  from  for- 
eign vessels  at  sea.  !f  any  instance  has  lately  occured  it  is  another  ev- 
idence of  HriLish  examples.  Other  nations  tvill  foilow  the  lawless  and 
pernicious  precedents  set  before  them  by  England,  and  thin  is  one  of  the 
acverest  ilia  to  neutrals /or  w/iich  Britain  it  rtsfionsibU, 


(    50    ) 

civil  administration,  surely  neutral  citizens  cannot,  witfi 
impunity,  be  made  prisoners  on  board  their  own  vessels, 
out  of  the  English  jurisdiction,  at  the  discretion  of  every 
younp;  midshipman  or  lieutenant.  When  it  is  done,  the 
English  officer  is  subject  to  damages,  or  we  are  in  a  worse 
condition  than  subjects. 

It  is  a  solemn  and  imperious  duty  of  the  United  State* 
to  take  a  calm  stand  upon  the  strong  ground  of  law  and 
reason,  to  prevent  injury  and  to  obtain  remedy  in  such 
cases.  We  have  a  clear  right  to  urge  too,thatEnglishmen, 
lawfully  contracted  to  us,  as  seamen  and  passengers,  are 
bound  to  remain  with  us,  till  the  contract  shall  be  perform- 
ed— and  that  this  constitutes  another  insuperable  objec- 
tion to  taking  them  from  us  by  impressment.  There  is  no 
law  of  either  nation,  forbidding  our  agreeing  with  British 
seamen  and  passengers,  and  we  might  as  morally  and  just- 
ly break  the  contracts,  of  our  citizens  with  their  subjects 
for  goods,  as  they  break  their  subjects  contracts  with  us 
for  services  or  as  passengers.  We  repeat  the  suggestion, 
that  law  must  necessarily  govern  in  the  business  and  per- 
sonal intercourse  between  Americans  and  Britons,  if  they 
mean  (as  we  do)  to  preserve  a  good  understanding.  We 
do  not  invade  their  personal  rights.  They  must  cease  to 
invade  ours.  We  do  not  invade  their  rights  of  property  : 
They  must  not  continue  to  invade  ours. 

The  practice  of  the  impressment  of  the  particular  class 
of  British  subjects,  called  '•'  seamen,"  even  within  the 
British  jurisdiction,  is  not  capable  of  being  pursued,  with- 
out an  illegitimate  sacrifice  of  the  principles  of  the  com- 
pacts between  the  nation  and  their  king  in  the  great  char- 
ters. NothiiTg  but  an  act  of  parliament  (perhaps  not  that) 
can  abrogate  the  stipulations  of  these  charters, — The  long 
custom  of  impressiiig,  like  the  custom  of  purchasing  seats 
in  parliament,  cannot  legalize  the  measure.  Hence  no 
man  has  ever  been  hanged  for  murder  on  account  of  a 
death  clearly  produced  in  resisting  impressment.  Great 
Britain  wants  soldiers  more  than  sailors  :  yet  she  does  not 
venture  to  impress  men  to  fill  her  regiments,  bound  to  the 

same    UlUoCS   as     Il«-I    Blljps  %^l    •srrttJs  J.  t--.     ...-J- ^ 

are  uninformed,  violently  conveyed  away,  confined  in  float- 
ing  prisons^  and  therefore  unable  to  resist,  with  success, 


i) 


Pamphlet 
Blntfar 


) 


(     51     ) 

ihe  particular  measure  of  oppression  often  dealt  out  t© 
them,  even  in  times  of  the  most  calm  and  serene  peace. 
The  illegitimacy  of  the  impressment  of  real  Knpflishmen, 
within  their  jurisdiction,  increases  the  dissatisfaction  of  the 
Americans  at  the  impressment  of  persons  in  our  ships  on 
the  high  seas.  We  know  it  to  be  unlawful  and  oppressive, 
and  that  it  justifies  our  citizens  in  resistance,  at  every  haz- 
ard.    We  notice  this,  because  America  has  been  violent- 
ly censured  for  introducing  a  bill  into  her  legislature  to 
clothe  this  right  in  certain,  known  and  permanent  language. 
It  will  not  be  denied,  that  the  captain  and  crew  of  a  British 
merchant  ship,  (if  neutral)  on  the  high  seas,  would  be  jus- 
tifiable in  shooting  to  desilh  an  American  lieutenant  and 
press-gang,  (if  we  were  at  war  with  France)  who  should 
be  in  the  act  of  taking  the  contracud  American  seamen 
and  passengcis  out  of  such  neutral  British  merchant  ves- 
sel.    If  so,  the  rule  must  work  in  favor,  now  we  are  neu- 
tral, and  England  at  war.     The  proposed  biU,   therefore, 
went  only  to  declare  the  law  ;    not  to  make   it.      Great 
Britain,  in  her  confidential  cabinet,  ought  to  consider,  that 
her  practice  of  impressment  is  giving  rise  to  serious  dis- 
cussions with  a  nation,  which  are  full  of  tenants  in  com- 
mon with  her,  of  all  the  legal  ground  of  the  British  em- 
pire, of  the  3d  dav  of  July,  1776,  which  we  shall  choose  to 
occupy. 

We  arc  desirous  to  press  this  particular  subject,  on  the 
consideration  of  the  British  government,  because  it  makes 
her  many  enemies  in  our  country,  and  may  make  us  many 
enemies'outof  our  country.  Her  public  men  and  subjects 
here  have  witnessed  a  very  indecorous  newspaper  attack 
on  this  particular  subject,  upon  our  government,  consid- 
ered to  be  the  work  ot  a  foreign  minister  of  a  belligerent 
power,  remaining  in  America.  It  is  theretbre,  no  pretence 
on  our  part,  that  we  are  considered  to  have  been  careless 
of  our  neutrality  with  respect  to  our  seamen.  There  are 
persons,  both  American  and  foreign,  who  firmly  believe 
that  Great  Britain  wishes,  by  engaging  our  seamen  in  her 
ships  of  war,  to  embroil  us  with  her  enemies.  The  English 
#v/Mr£>ft-imoi-i4-  Irnoiii/  \-\r\\\]  iittfrlv  nvprsp  ■we.  are  to  en^rajre  in 


L  vr  T  ^2  IIXSIV  !SV      r*»« 


O    -d' 


this  war,  and  therefore  such  an  opinion  in  the  nation,  and 
in  our  publick  councils,  would  be  very  unfavorable  to  her. 


! 


(     52    ) 

We  speak  plainly  on  all  •iir  subjects.  It  is  the  language 
required  in  this  critical  time,  from  a  reasonable  and  correct 
neutrality,  and  from  a  legitimate  amity  towards  all  the  bel- 
ligerents. We  hope,  hqvvever,  that  we  speak  with  the  ne- 
cessary good  temper,  even  under  irritating  circumstances. 
There  are  circumstances  connected  with  this  subject, 
which  ought  to  engage  the  consideration  of  Great  Britain, 
if  she  wishes  to  ihaintain  her  standing  in  the  United  States, 
During  the  session  of  Congress  in  which  the  non-importa- 
tion law  wac  passed,  a  member  of  the  senate  from  Mary? 
land,  introduced  a  bill,  to  declare  the  legality  of  American 
resistance  to  British  impressment,  by  all  the  force  and  arms 
•f  the  impressed  persons.  In  t;he  next  following  session 
of  the  legislature  of  Maryland,  he  was  elected  their  gov- 
ernor. This  is  an  impressive  fact,  as  shewing  the  feelings 
and  judgment  of  the  wealthy  and  populous  middle  state  of 
Maryland,  concerning  a  strenuous  opposition  to  the  long 
continued,  repeated,  and  unremedied  aggressions  of  Great 
Britain  against  our  flag,  our  property  and  our  mariners. 
There  is  no  hostility  in  presenting  such  facts  to  the  pru- 
dence of  Great  Britain,  in  her  legislative  chambers,  her 
executive  councils,  her  courts  of  appeal,  her  prize  tribu- 
nals, and  the  public  h^Us  of  her  manufacturers  and  mer- 
chants. The  impressment  of  our  seamen  was  the  partic- 
ular object  of  the  Maryland  senator.  We  wish  it  to  be 
perceived,  that  there  is  no  prospect  that  the  United  States 
will  any  longer  endure  the  violation  of  their  flag  by  impress- 
ment. England  would  resist  by  force,  according  to  the 
form  of  our  bill^  and  in  every  way,  our  impressments  of 
her  trading  ships  crews.  We  may,  therefore,  resist  her 
impressments  in  every  corresponding  manner. — She  may 
with  justice  and  good  conscience  resort  to  the  laws  of 
peace. — We  have  already  done  it  in  our  non-importation 
act. — Our  citizens  must  be  protected  from  unlawful  ar- 
restations,  and  from  conversions  of  their  neutral  hands  to 
the  purposes  of  an  illegitimate  .warfare  against  nations 
with  whom  we  are  at  peace. 


No.  XII, 


In  a  former  number  of  these  papers  we  mentioned  a 
section  of  a  modern  act  of  the  British  parliament,  relative 


llVtVIIIUUIIl 

Pamphlet 
BlndftiL 


(     53     ) 

to  thp  dictation  of  rules  and  regulations  for  Ae  prize  courts 
which  adjudge  neutrals,  by  the  British  ki^in  council. 

This  unjust  and  unprecedented  law  is  entitled  an  act 
for  the  encouragement  of  the  British  seamen  and  manning 
the  navy  !  For  these  purposes^  it  countenances  the  idea, 
that  the  king  of  Great  Britain  may  direct  the  con- 
science and  judgment  of  the  courts  of  admiralty,  in 
condemning  our  ships  and  cargoes,  against  a  treaty  or 
the  law  of  nations  !  It  appears  to  have  been  a  part  of  the 
new  system,  whereof  the  treaty  with  Russia,  of  March, 
1793,  and  the  June  and  November  orders  of  that  govern- 
ment of  the  same  year,  made  a  part.  The  section  to  which 
we  refer,  is  in  vol.  39,  p.  276,  of  the  British  statutes,  and 
l-unstlius:  — 

«'  Section  ^5,  Pro'oidcd  alwaysy  and  be  it  enacted,  that 
nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  restrain  his  ma- 
jesty, his  heirs  and  successors,  from  giving  such  further 
rules  »nd  directions  from  time  to  time,  to  his  respective 
courts  of  admiralty  and  vice  admiralty,  for  the  adjudica- 
tion and  condemnation  of  prizes,  as  by  his  majesty,  his 
heirs  and  successors,  with  the  advice  of  his  or  their  privy 
council,  shall  be  thought  necessary  or  proper." 

In  considering  the  above  recited  section  of  the  British 
actof  Parliament  of  June  tile  17th,  1793,  the  important 
reflection  forcibly  arises,  that  no  such  provision  of  a- stat- 
ute ever  occurred  before  that  year, 

A  second  and  very  important  reflection  occurs,  that  the 
rules  and  directions  to  the  courts^  which  the  King  and  coun- 
cil of  Great  Britain  might  think  proper  and  necessary, 
^ight  be,  (as  they  sometimes  are)  beyond  or  contraiy  tq 
the  universal  law  of  nations,  , 

A  third  and  very  important  reflection  occurs,  that  those 
rules  and  directions  to  the  courts^  might  be  contrary  to  ex- 
isting treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  other  powers, 
This  was  the  case  with  respect  to  the  Danes  and  Swedes, 
in  the  instance  of  her  orders  of  November  6,  1793,  for 
the  treaties  of  those  nations  w^th  England  made  enemies 
goods  safe  in  their  ships. 

It  is  now  intended  to  be  shewn,  that  the  constitution  of 
Great  Britain,  as  ie  was  laid  down  by  such  eminent  jurists 
as  the  late  lord  chief  justice  Mansfield,  did  not  allow  th^' 


(     54    ) 

courts  of  admiralty  or  vice  admiralty,  to  consider  the  rule* 
anddirections^ofthe  king  and  council  as  of  governing  force. 
No  case  can  be  more  correctly  adduced  than  that  of  the 
Silesia  loatiy  between  England  and  Prussia,  to  establish 
the  doctrine,  that  by  the  constitution  of  Great  Britain,  the 
law  of  nations  and  existing  treaties  formed  the  exclusive 
ieeitimate  basis  of  the  adjudications  of  their  courts  of  ad- 
miralty and  vice  admiralty,  and  appeals.      On  that  occa- 
sion the  great  law   characters  employed  by  his  iiritannic 
majesty,  were  sir  George  Lee,  judge  of  the  British  pre- 
rogative court,  sir  Dudley  Ryder,  the  attorney. general  of 
Great  Britain,  Mr.  W.   Murray,  (afterwards  lord  chief 
justice  Mansfield)  then  the  royal  solicitor-general,  and  Dr. 
G.  Paul,  the  royal  advocate  general  in  the  courts  of  civil 
law.     These  great  characters,  in  the  civil  and   common 
law,  attached  to  the  crown  by  offices  of  great  honor  and 
profit  held  at  its  pleasure,  will  be  found  to  have  decidedly 
rejected  all  authority,  but  that  o^ positive  treaties  between 
Great  Britain  and  Prussia,  whose  subjects*  property   was 
in  question,  and  the  universal  or  customary  law  of  nations. 
Their  language  goes  to  the  exclusion  of  the  doctrine   of 
the  section  of  the  act  of  parliament,  above  recited. 

Mr.  Murray  (afterwards  lord  C.  J.  Mansfield)  and  his 
•able  and  learned  associates  proceed  to  state,  that  they  are 
<!ommanded  to  give  their  opinions,  how  far  the  king  of 
Prussia's  expectations  are  consistent  with  *'  the  establish- 
ed rules  of  admiralty  jurisdiction^  and  the  laws  of  this  king- 
do??i^^  of  Great  Britain. 

They  further  state  as  *  ♦  clear  established  principles  of/aWy 
that  by  the  maritime  law  of  nations,  universally  and  im- 
jnemorially  received,  there  is  an  established  method  of 
determination,  whether  the  capture  of  enemies  goods  on 
board  of  the  ship  of  a  friend,  6cc.  be  or  be  not  lawful  prize  ; 
and  that  the  condemnation  thereupon,  as-  prize,  must  be 
in  a  court  of  admiralty,  judging  by  the  law  of  nations  and 
by  treaties."  They  do  not  in  the  slightest  manner  or  de- 
•gree  recognize  the  authority  of  an  act  of  parliament,  or  of  an 
order  ofthe  king  in  council,  in  virtue  of  such  an  act,  or  ojf 
«ny  supposed  royal  prerogative,  as  legitimate  or  e(|uitable, 
or  as  a  rule  to  them  in  a  tribunal,  whidi  concerns  as  welj. 
*U  foreign  powers,  as  tlieir  own  nation. 


IIWIWIMUUIII 


I 


(    55    ) 

It  is  further  stated  by  these  able  and  learned  officers  of 
the  British  crown  itself,  that  "  if  the  sentence  of  the  coiirt 
of  admiralty  be  thought  erroneous,  there  is  in  every  coun- 
try a  superior  court  of  review,  he  ;  and  that  this  superior 
court  judges  by  the  same  rule,  which  governs  the  court  of 
admiralty,  viz.  the  law  of  nations,  and  the  treaties  sub- 
sisting with  that  neutral  power,  whose  subject  is  a  party 
before  them."  Nor  one  sided  acts  of  a  parliament,  nor 
one  sided  orders  of  a  king  in  council,  are  acknowledged 
to  be  law  or  rule  or  direction  to  these  courts,  whose  juris- 
diction includes  all  sides,  and  all  nations  and  their  para- 
mount  universal  law. 

1  hese  British  crown  lawyers  proceed  to  declare,  that 
•'  in  this  method  all  captures  at  sea  were  tried  during  the 
last  war  by  Great  Britain,  France  and  Spain,  and  submit- 
ted to  by  the  neutral  powers.  lathis  method,  by  courts 
of  admiralty  acting  according  to  the  law  of  nations  and 
particular  treaties,  say  they,  all  captures  at  sea  have  been 
immemorially  judged  of  in  every  country  of  Europe.  Any 
other  method  of  trial  (say  Murray,  lord  Mansfield  and  his 
associates)  would  be  manifestly,  unjust,  absurd  and  imprac 
ticabley—Such  is  the  true  character  of  the  section,  and 
of  the  doctrine  it  insinuates,  as  though  it  had  been  known 
and  received  and  sound. 

In  the  next  section,  they  speak  of  the  law  of  nations, 
as  the  general  rule  capable  of  being  varied  or  departed 
from  oiily  by  mutual  agreement,  between  two  powers. 
Treaties  and  usage  (written  and  perscriptive  law  of  na- 
tions) arc  recognized  as  the  certain  known  and  only  rules 
of  courts  of  admiralty  in  all  cases  of  captures.     They  re- 
cognize the  right  of  judges  of  the  admiralty  to  be  '« left 
free,  and  to  give  sentence  according  to  their  conscience.'' 
"  E'0€}y  foreign  prince  in  amity,  say  they,  has  a  right  to 
demands  that  justice  shall  be  done  his  subjects,  in  those 
courts,  according  to  the  law  of  nations  and  particular  trea- 
ties,  where  any  are  subsisting.     If,  in  re  fninine  duhta^ 
these  courts  proceed  upon  foundations  directly  opposite 
to  the  law  of  nations  or  subsisting  treaties,  the  neutral 
state  has  a  right  to  complain  of  such  determination.    But 
there  never  was  nor  never  can  be  any  other  equitable  me- 
thod of  trial.     All  the  maritime  nations  of  Europe  have» 


'f 


% 


^ 


» 


1 


If 


. 


(    56    ) 

when  at  war.  from  the  earliest  times,  uniformly  proceedect 
in  this  way,  with  the  approbation  of  ail  the  powers  at 
peace."  They  add  these  remarkable  declarations,  that 
'*  in  England  the  crown  never  interferes  with  the  course 
of  justice.  No  order  or  intimation  is  ever  given  to  any 
judge :  and  that  *'  the  British  minister  knew,  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  courts  of  admiralty  to  do  equal  justice  ;" 
It  is  again  declared  by  these  British  judges  and  lawyers, 
that  '*  all  ships  of  war  were  bound  to  act,  and  courts  9/ 
admiralty  to  judge  according  to  the  laiv  of  nations  and 
treaties.^'' 

We  have  been  careful  to  make  copious  quotations  from 
the  formal  official  opinion  and  report  of  this  British  judge 
and  these  British  crown  lawyers,  in  this  most  famous,- 
important  and  well  considered  case  of  the  capture  of  neu-, 
tral  Prussian  ships  by  the  British  public  and  private  ships 
of  war,  which  gave  rise  to  the  question  of  the  Silesia  loan, 
— They  are  conclusive. — But  yet  we  must  ask  the  utmost 
attention  to  their  answer  to  the  fourth  Prussian  article, 
wherein  t|ie  Prussian  government  states,  '*  that  the  Bri- 
"  tibh  ministers  have  said  that  these  questions  (between 
the  belligerent  British  and  the  neutral  Prussians)  were 
decided  according  to  the  laws  of  England.''^ 
The  English  judges  and  lawyers  answer,  *'  that  the  Bri- 
«<  tish  ministers  must  have  been  misunderstood »  for  the  law 
'♦  of  England  says  that  all  captures  at  sea,  as  prize,  in  time 
«'  of  war,  must  be  judged  of  in  a  court  of  admiralty,  ac- 
*'  cording  to  tLe  laws  of  nations,  and  particular  treaties, 
'«  where  there  arc  any."  They  add  that  **  there  never 
•'  existed  a  case,  where  a  court,  judging  according  to  the 
«'  laws  of  England,  only,*  ever  took  cognizance  of  a 
♦*  prize." 

Such  was  the  constitution  and  law  of  England,  the 
law  of  Europe,  the  law  of  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  ac- 
curately laid  down,  after  deliberate  official  examination, 
and  consideration  in  the  responsible  characters  of  British 
judges  and  crown  officers  by  William  Murray  (afterwards 
Lord  C.  J.  Mansfield)  and  his  associates,  in  this  impor- 

•  T/uH  is  equally  strong  against  fileea,  under  British  municipal  law^  in  re- 
gard  to  im/ircsaments  in  our  shifit.  There  never  ivas  a  case  of  such  imfiressj 
tnrnts  till  we  became  a  nativn.  The  practice  makes  us  still  dependent 
liraisU  subjects. 


(( 


(( 


*      \ 


rnoiomouni 
Pamphlet 
Blndu 


^W) 


(    57    ) 

taut  commission.     This  solemn  proceeding  was  had  in  con- 
sequence of  an  express  order  of  king  George  the  Second  of 
G.  Britain,  to  those  public  (characters,  through  his  principal 
secretary  of  state,  the  duke  of  Newcastle.     The  duke's  let- 
ter, covering  these  law  officers'  joint  answer  to  Mr.  Mitchell, 
the  Prussian  secretary  of  legation,  contains  some  important 
c<vnfirmations,  and  declarations.     In  his  second  paragraph, 
he  expressly  and  without  qualification  asserts,  that  "  the  law 
of  nations  is  universally  allowed  to  be  the  only  rule,  in  such 
(neutral  prize)  cases,  where  there  is  nothing  stipulated  to  the 
contrary  by  particular  treaties,  between  the  parties  concern- 
ed."   The  duke,  as  secretary  of  state,  further  declares,  that 
the  report  or  opinion  of  those  crown  officers,  is  founded  on 
the  principles  of  this  law  of  "  nations,"  and  that  the  courts 
of  admiralty,  *'  including  both  the  inferior  courts  and  courts 
of  appeal,  always  decide  according  to  the  universal  law  cf 
nations  only  :  except  in  "  those  cases,  where  there  are  par- 
ticular treaties  between  the  powers  concerned,  which  have 
altered  the  dispositions  of  the  law  of  nations,  or  deviated  from 

tihpTn  " 

The  duke  of  Newcastle  also  declared,  that  the  alarm  giv- 
en by  the  Prussian  conduct  to  the  whole  nauon  and  by  the 
extraordinary  nature  of  the  subject,   had  determined  the- 
king  of  Great  Britain  to  take  time  to  have  thmgs  exammed 
to  the  bottom  and  maturely  considered.    Hence  we  see,  that 
the  king,  the  prime  minister,  the  admiralty  judge,  and  the 
crown  lawyers,  (including  one  of  the  most  extensive  learn- 
ing, profound  wisdom,  and  decided  attachment  to  the  legiti- 
mate prerogatives  of  the  crown)  have  sanctioned  the  position, 
that  no  power,  right,  or  claim  "  to  give  rules  and  directions 
to  the  courts  of  admiralty,  for  the  adjudicution  aiy^  condem- 
nation of  prizes"  existed  in  the  king  and  council  of  v>reat 
Britain— Such  a  power  therefore,  could  not  be  inferrea  from, 
recognized,  saved,  or  confirmed,  by  the  35th  section  of  the 
act  of  33d  of  Geo.  the  Sd,  chapter  66.     Nor  do  the  words 
of  that  section  grant  such  a  right  or  prerogative  to  the  crown. 
It  is  therefore  correct  to  assert,  that  all  condemnations  ot 
neutral  American  ships  and  cargoes,   made  and  confirmed 
by  the  British  courts  of  vice-admiralty  and  appeals  against 
the  law  of  nations,  or  beyond  or  without  that  law,  upon  the 
orders  of  the  king  of  England  are  unjust,  illegitimate,  mat- 

ters  01  ngnxiui  coinpiaiuL  uii  uk;  j^-ait.  ui  fciiwiiVMU^i  vv'». — .-. 

H 


(    58    ) 

and  which  authorize  us  "  to  demand  that  justice  be  yet  done 
us,  in  those  British  courts,  according  to  the  law  of  nations, [" 
for  all  captures  prior  to  Mr.  Jay's  treaty  and  since  its  expi- 
ration ;  and  according  to  the  law  of  nations  and  that  treaty, 
for  all  captures  during  its   being  and  continuing  in   force. 
Never  was  there  a  fairer,  souuder  or  stronger  ground  to  re- 
quire, tliat  a  commission  be  established  to  ascertain  our 
damages  and  injuries,  with  costs,  chi^rgesand  interest,  in  all 
cases  wherein  detentions,  captures  and  condemnations  have 
occurred,  solely  in  consequence  of  diose  British  executive 
orders.     We  have  suffered  deeply  indeed  from  this  act,  from 
British  anti-neutral  treaties,  and  orders  of  that  crown  ;  but  all 
the  injurious  consequences  in  the  wars  of  1793  and  1803, 
and  in  future  luars  cannot  be  estimated. 

We  have  before  remarked,  that  our  original  nation  of  the 
3d  of  Julv,  1776,  having  been  divided  in  due  form,  we  are 
full  ten?.tits  in  common  with  our  late  British  compatriots  in 
all  the  ground  of  the  constitution  and  general  laws  of  our  for- 
mer empire,  'luliich  we  choose  to  occupy — and  we  may  add, 
that  ai  the  epocha  of  our  separation,  no  such  section  existed. 
It  cannot  therefore  in  law,  right,  or  conscience  be  used  to 
affect  us,  but  the  settled  doctrines  of  Mansfield  and  his  asso- 
ciates may  be  specially  pleaded  in  our  iavor.     There  can 
be  no  doubt,  that  a  foreign  coiu-se  of  practice,  under  such 
orders,  agiixnst  the  law  of  nations,  is  a  sufficient  cause  of 
war,  whenever  such  practice  occurs  without  redress.     Nor 
can  it  be  denied,  that  this  unprecedented  section,  and  that 
of  the  British  act  of  1803,  in  the  same  words,  would  give 
a  broad  foundation  for  similar  executive  orders  of  other  fo- 
reign governments,  ii'  they  passed  without  our  protest. 


^f    \ 


No.  XIII.  -^ 
The  notorious  perversions  and  misapplications  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  rules  of  blockade  are  among  tlie  most  pernicious 
fruits  of  the  British  irregularities  of  1792  and  1793.  The 
forcible  prevention  of  neutrals  from  the  lawful  carrying  ot 
supplies  to  France  from  peaceful  aud  neutral  England,  Ham- 
burg, Sec.  and  .the  British  conventions  witli  Russia,^  Spam, 
Austria  and  Prussia,  after  the  war  had  began,  with  the  con- 
,i„A4.  >>K^«~..-^j  t«  fiann'x    T'licpanv  niifl    Amerlca.  the  at- 

tempts  of  England  upon  tlie  Danes  and  Swedes,  and  the 


i    1 


(  ^  ) 

monstrous  practice  of  neutral  impressments,  held  forth  to 
the  British  naval  commanders  the  greatest  encouragement  of 
the  practice  of  insult  and  injury  against  laiv.  The  new 
and  unwarrantable  section  of  the  act  of  parliament  of  the 
17th  of  June,  1793,  openly  sanctioning  executive  interference 
in  judicial  trials  and  decisions,  and  in  the  capture  and  confis- 
cation of  neutral  property,  under  those  forms  of  law,  placed 
tlie  illegitimate  acts  of  admirals  and  ministers  under  the 
broad  cover  of  an  universal  indemnity,  if  even  a  secret  order 
of  an  irresponsible  chief  magistrate  could  only  be  obtained. 
What  evil  practice  did  not  such  a  state  of  things  teach 
France  ?  What  vexation  and  injury  did  not  such  a  condition 
of  things'hold  out  to  the  neutral  states?  The  unauthorized 
regulation  of  all  neutral  trade,  under  the  name,  pretence,  and 
forms  of  "  Blockade,*'  in  cases  wherein  the  rights  of  Block- 
aders  and  the  duties  of  neutrals  did  not  occur  or  exist,  was 
a  shorter  step,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, /row  the  ground 
of  lawless  violence  on  which  she  stood  when  executing  her 
4  )  convention  with  Russia,  than  was  her  monstrous   step   to 

that  ground,  from  the  situation  of  a  correct  co-neutral  be- 
fore her  French  war,  or  from  the  situation  of  an  honest  and 
orderly  belligerent  after  the  commencement  of  her  quarrel 
with  France.     The  neutrals  were  to  be  harassed,  mulcted, 
spoliated  and  impressed  till  they  would  consent  to  become 
parties  in  the  war  on  the  English  side.  *  The  whole  French 
people  were  to  be  deliberately  starved,  till  they  ^^ oiild  con- 
sent to  the  abandonment  of  their  colonies,   the  partition   of 
their  home  dominions,  and  the  abolition  of  their  civil  con- 
stitution.    To  accomplish  these  things,  the  king  of  Great 
Britain,  in  the  manner  we  have  seen,  usurped  the  legislation 
oftlie  ocean,  and  substituted  orders  of  himseU  in  council 
tor  the  universal  prescriptive  law  of  nations  and  for  his  own 
obligatory  treaties.    To  produce  the  surrender  of  the  French 
colonies,  they  were  deprived  of  all  trade  by  the  order  of 
council  of  November  1793,  contrary  to  the  rights  of  bellig- 
erent Tuscany,  Prussia  and  Russia  and  of  neutral  America, 
Denmark  and  Sweden.     At  that  stage  of  British  irregularity, 
the  new  perversions  of  the  name  of  Blockades  were  not 
thought  of,  nor  were  the  forms  adopted.     A  short  but  un^ 
parailed  order,  directing  the  seizure  as  \^e\\  of  belligerent  al- 
lies as  of  neutrals,  if  going  to  or  coming  from  or  cany  mg 
the  produce  of  a  French  colony,  was  secretly  adopted.   The 


.ijj'jiLi  -loi' WPM-r 


■tm 


(     60     ) 

British  commanders  followed  up  this  act,  by  proclamations 
of  Blockade  respecting  places  and  islands,  which  they  did 
not  either  invest  or  attack.  But  it  answered  the  purposes 
in  the  halls  of  tfieir  admiralty,  for  the  courts  had  the  orders 
of  the  British  king  and  council  as  "  rules''  for  the  condcra. 
nation  of  the  neutrals,  and  they  found  the  name  of  blockade 
in  the  law  of  nations  and  in  the  proclamations  of  the  naval 
commanders.  The  fact  of  no  blockade  would  not  be  admit- 
ted against  the  letter  of  an  Admiral's  proclamation,  in  favor 
of  a  defenceless  neutral. 

In  a  short  process  of  time  another  consequent  step  in  this 
injurious  w  ork  was  openly  taken,  Admiral  Sir  Horatio  NeU 
son  (afterwards  Lord  Nelson)  i.ndertook  to  announce  to  the 
Neutral  consuls  residing  m  Cadiz,  that  on  account  of  her 
war  with  England,  '*  it  was  found  right  that  Spain  should 
no  longer  have  any  tradcj*'  and  that  Cadiz  would  conse- 
quently be  treated  as  a  blockaded  port,  and  all  the  neutrals 
were  to  suffer  accordingly,  if  they  should  attempt  the  trade. 
Here  were  the  forms  and  name  of  a  blockade  illegitimately 
announced  upon  the  ground  of  annihilating  the  Spanish  com- 
merce and  with  it  the  lawful  trade  of  neutrals.  Admiral 
Nelson  could  have  been  regularly  impeached  for  illegiti- 
mately using  the  name  and  forms  and  rules  of  Blockade  for 
a  purpose  not  at  all  military,  and  avowedly  to  annihilate 
merely  the  trade  of  a  belligerent  at  the  expense  of  neutral 
rights.  It  may  be  said  that  England  would  have  laughed 
at  the  application  ;  but  this  would  only  prove  tliatshe  would 
laugh  at  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  against  neutral  rights 
under  the  universallaw  of  nations.  Here  again  France  and 
Spain  must  have  seen,  that  England  would  promptly  violate 
neutral  rights,  whenever  it  should  seem  to  be  her  interest, 
without  the  least  appearance  or  pretence  of  necessity. 

The  occlasions  of  the  Elbe  and  the  Weser,  under  the 
name,  form  and  regimen  of  **  blockade,'^  are  measures  of - 
the  same  unlawful  character.  In  these  cases,  the  unhappy 
people  of  the  electorate  of  Hanover,  \vhom  the  British  Gov- 
ernment  could  not  protect,  and  whom  they  did  not  attempt 
to  relieve,  were  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  export  their 
produce  and  manufactures  and  to  import  their  necessary 
supplies.  Their  electoral  prince  (and  political  father)  trans- 
<WrrH  ^r^m  fnrpio-n  Uinfl  "serl  the  foreioTi  navv  of  that  loreiirn 
State,  to  destroy  their  occupations  and  means  of  subsistence, 


r'noiomouni 
Pamphlet 


(     61     ) 

figainst  the  law  of  nations,  Avhen  he  could  rot  protect  them. 
Let  it  not  be  thought,  that  suggestions  so  aHecling  as  these 
are  published  to  offend.     Let  it  rather  occasion  the  govern- 
ment and  people  of  Great  Britain  to  perceive,  that  her  ille- 
gitimate and  ardent  career  of  anti-neutral  conduct  has  un- 
happily occasioned  her  to  transcend  all  the  laws  of  reason 
and  humanity,  and  all  the  limitations  of  indubitable  right 
When  England  was  a  neutral  in  1792  and  '93,  she  destroy- 
ed the  neutral  Hanoverian  markets  for  grain,  iii  the  Hanse 
Towns  :  and  since  she  has  been  at  war,  she  has  interrupted 
their  whole  import  and  export  trades.     She  has  obliged  de- 
pendent  Hanover  to  be  neuter,  to  avoid  the  attacks  of  the 
French,  and  has  driven  Tuscany  out  of  her  neutrality  to 
fight  I^'rance.     Thus  she  has  hitherto  acted,  towards  neu- 
trals and  subjects,  as  seemed  good  in  her  own  eyes,  and  sets 
up  a  pretention  to  annihilate  a  digested  treaty  with  us,  be* 
cause  France  retaliates  some  of  her  irregularities :  And  here 
let  it  7tot  he  fcrgotterii  that  whatever  may  be  the  date  of  any 
British  aggression  on  neutral  rights,  or  whatever  may  be  the 
time  of  any  British  contravention  of  the  usages  of  war  among 
civilized  belligerents,  her  four  treaties  of  1793,*  are  the 
broad  and  deep,  and  early  and  original  and  real  foundations 
of  all,  which  she  has  since  done  and  which  the  other  bellig- 
erents, adversary  or  allied,  have  followed  or  retaliated. 

It  is  true,  that  the  government  and  people  of  the  United 
States  have  not  a  right  to  make  formal  complaint  of  the  con- 
duct of  the  belligerent  powers  in  other  and  remote  countries, 
but  as  the  friends  of  Great  Britain  often  justify  her  conduct 
at  sea  by  the  measures  of  France  towards  the  countries  sub- 
jected by  her  arms,  it  is  not  irrelative  to  our  subject  to  ad- 
vert to  the  anterior  English  conduct  in  this  respect.     The 
principles,  which  the  British  commanders  by  land  and  sea, 
adopted  in  the  early  stages  of  the  first  war,  are  fully  display- 
ed in  a  case  before  us.     General  Sir  Charles  Grey,   at  pre- 
sent Earl  Grey,  and  admiral  Sir  J.  Jervis  now  Earl  St.  Vin, 
cents,  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1794,  took  possession  of 
the  I'rench  island  of  Martinico,     In  the  course  of  tiieir  pub- 
lic acts  and  proclamations,  as  printed  in  Debrett's  British 
state  papers,  it  appears,  that  these  two  commanders  openly 
demanded  of  the  people  of  Martinico  *'  a  sum  of  money  ad- 
equate to  the  'oalue  of  the  conquest  (the  island  and  its  rich 
*  With  Russia,  Austria,  Prussia  and  Spain, 


; 


i 


(     82     > 

contents)  destined  to  reward  the  valour,  to  compensate  the 
excessive  fatigues,  and  to  make  good  the  heavy  expense  in- 
curred by  the  British  soldiers,  who  with  unshaken  finni-.ess 
and  matchless  perseverance  atchieved  the  conquest"*  and 
they  expressly  hold  forth  the  idea  that  this  measure  is  in 
lieu  of  a  '* general  conJissation'\  Such  proclamations,  in 
\ht  first  West  India  campaign  and  before  France  had  adopt- 
ed similar  measures,  are  unhappy  additions  to  the  volume  of 
real  British  examples  to  the  French  commanders  by  sea 
and  land. 

There  are  not  wanting  many  respectable  British  authori- 
ties to  prove  the  unwarrantable  and  systematic  interferences 
of  the  British  government,  in  the  first  year  of  the  war,  with 
the  rights  of  neutrals  and  the  independence  of  their  councils. 
In  the  historical  division  of  the  new  annual  Register  of  Great 
Britain,  the  able  and  candid  authors  of  that  respectable  work, 
do  not  hesitate  to  admit  before  their  own  nation  and  govern, 
mcnt,  the  neutral  states  and  the  belligerent  powers,  that "  th6 
ardor  with  which  tlie  British  ministry  (of  A.  D.  1792-3)  em- 
barked in  the  war  against  France,  was  presently  manifested  by, 
perhaps,  the  most  extraordinary  proceeding,  that  ever  ap- 
]r»eared  upon  record,  and  this  was,  to  force  the  neutral  ponuers 
to  unite  in  the  combination  to  crush  the  French  republic.** 

We  do  not  mention  the  recent  instances  of  British  dicta- 
tion to  the  neutral  states.  We  are  well  aware,  that  in  those 
instances,  we  should  be  met  by  the  suggestion  of  a  :i  alleged 
necessity,  of  which  they  claim  to  be  the  sole  judges,  and  by 
pleas  in  respect  to  self  preservation,  which  did  not  exist  till 
the  termination  of  the  rrench  directories,  and  do  not  even 
now  apply  to  our  sincere,  distant  and  useful  neutrality.  Our 
object  has  been  to  verify,  with  calmness,  decency  and  per- 
fect truth;  the  charge  against  Great  Britain  of  original  ag' 
gression  against  neutrals^  and  to  shew  the  consequent  injus- 
tice of  her  claim  of  retaliation.  For  this  reason,  we  have 
generally  adduced  facts,  either  of  dates  anterior  to  the 
French  and  English  war  of  the  1st  of  Feb.  1793,  or  to  the 
French  decree  of  the  9th  May,  1793,  and  English  proceed- 
ings, which  have  grown  out  of  the  early  diplomatic,  legisla- 
tive, naval  iuid  military  proceedings  of  Great  Britain.  It  is 
not  however,  to  put  the  British  government  in  the  wrong, 
as  to  the  times  i3ast,  that  this  examination  is  now  made.    It 

Extract  from  proclamation. 


,,, 


r'noiomouni 
Pamphiti 


,,, 


(    63    ) 

is  amicably  to  persuade  and  induce  her  io  be  right  in  future  j 
or  in  case  of  our  country  lailing  of  success  in  so  fair  and 
necessary  an  object,  to  contribute,  by  a  collection  ot  truths, 
to  illuminate  the  paths  of  right,  of  duty  and  of  interest,  which 
be  open  before  us.  It  has  been  too  often  the  misfortune  of 
British  politicians  to  desire  the  benefits  of  incompatible  cir- 
cumstances and  situations.  Not  long  alter  our  treaty  of  1783, 
it  appeared  that  Englai^id,  then  at  peace,  wished  to  manufac- 
turey  to  fishy  to  trade  and  to  carry  for  all  the  world;  yet, 
employing,  as  she  did,  two  thirds  ol  her  adults,  with  many 
of  their  families,  in  those  pursuits,  her  political  ceconomists 
complained,  that  this  wooded  and  agricultural  country,  sup- 
plied them  and  their  colonies  with  the  provisions  and  lum- 
ber, of  which  they  stood  in  need.  They  wished  to  farm  for 
the  world  too,  and  to  cut  wood  where  they  had  not  people. 
Now  that  England  is  at  war,  she  wishes  to  have  all  the  be- 
nefits of  a  nation  at  peace.  As  she  cannot  at  the  moment, 
hold  competition  with  neutrals  in  cheap  navigation  and  trade, 
she  endeavours  unfairly  and  unlawfully  to  maintain  the 
forms  and  rules  of  military  blockades,  to  monopolize  the  com- 
merce  of  the  world.  She  commits  aggressions  on  neutrals, 
for  a  series  of  years  and  claims  tlic  right  of  retaliation,  which 
belongs  to  her  adversaries.  She  denies  the  lawfulness  of 
supplying  and  buying  from  her  enemies,  and  in  the  face  of 
the  world,  enacts  statutes  to  enable  her  own  subjects  to  do 
those  things.  She  seizes,  by  the  sword,  on  all  India  and 
deprives  the  civilized  world  of  the  commerce  with  seventy 
or  eighty  millions  of  its  Asiatic  inliabitants,  and  she  com- 
plains loudly  when  her  enemies  afterwards,  deprive  her, 
by  the  same  sword  also,  of  commerce  with  a  smaller  num- 
ber of  the  people  of  Europe.  It  is  believed  to  be  necessary 
to  her  future  beneficial  intercourse  with  this  countrj^  that  she 
claim  nothing  of  us,  inconsistent  witii  public  law — that  she 
do  towards  us  nothing  contrary  to  it — and  that  she  be  zeal- 
ous to  facilitate  the  foreign  sales  of  our  produce,  or  contented 
to  see  us  manufacture  and  consume  it  at  home.  The  Brit- 
ish nation  is  not  either  strong  enough,  numerous  enough,  or 
so  situated  and  cucumstanced,  as  to  do  the  whole  business  of 
aU  mankind 

No.  XIV. 

On  a  dispassionate  consideration  of  the  preceding  historic- 
al facts,1u  their  palpable  connection  with  the  Anglo- Russiaj* 


li 


:i 


i 


1 1 

1 1 
;iti 


(     64     ) 

ionvcntion  of  1793,  wc  trust,  that  the  high  charge  •/ orlg^ 
inal  aseression  on  neutral  commerce  vtiU  appear  to  l)c  luily 
establ^hcd  a^nii^st  the  British  government.  If  the  contni- 
uance,  increase,  and  multiplication  of  those  ;»gHTession«  a^ 
not  admitted  by  Great  Bntam  and  her  triends,  a  brit  reci- 
tal  will  Ixi  buflicient  to  shew  them  to  an  imiwrtial  world. 

Actual  impressments  of  Britons  and  other  aliens,  and  ot 
our  own  citizens,  under  our  flag,  have  never  ceased,  hng- 
hmd  has  persevered  to  execute  her  own  ioubtful  munieipa^ 
hvw  on  board  ofour  ships  on  the  high  se&s,  m  violation  of  the 
law  of  nations,  of  our  neutral  rights,  of  written  mutual  eon- 
tracts,  and  of  the  safety  of  our  property  and  crews,  ^he  has 
been  uttcrlv  regardless  of  our  neutral  duties  and  dangcis  .11 
this  respeci ;  and  to  finish  the  subject,  she  at  the  same  mo- 
ment  takes  our  own  contracted  American  citizens,  on  tne 
hich  seas,  out  of  our  own  vessels,  making  them  prisoners, 
though  neutrals,  while  she  claims  of  us  alleged,  but  unascer- 
tained British  deserters,  in  belligerent  form. 

The  British  government  continues  to  encourage  ana  to 
maintain  their  publia  and  private  ships  of  war  and  courts, 
out  of  neutral  property,  by  suffering  the  exaction  of  the 
most  extravagant  and  unfounded  bills  of  costs  and  ctiarges, 
as  well  in  cases  of  cleared,  as  of  condemned  vessels  and  car- 
goes—to  the  great  vexation,  obstruction  and  injury  of  our 

neutral  trade.  ,.  .  .  ,  . 

The  new  overstrained  and  contradictory  opinions  and  de- 
cisions of  their  admiralty  tribunals,  and  their  frequent  con- 
traventions of  the  law  of  nations  in  consequence  of  their  hold- 
inc  as  "  the  rule  of  their  courts,  the  text  of  the  British 
king's  instructions,"  continue  illegithnately  to  mjure  and 
destroy  our  property  and  trade ;  while  British  merchants, 
seamen  and  vessels  arc  often  licenced  by  the  crown  or  b^- 
lawto  ffive  those  supplies  to  their  enemies,  and  aids  to  tneir 
enemy's  agriculture,  for  which  they  detain  our  citizens  and 

condemn  our  property.  ,    ^  •  .  ^-.i; 

The  operatm  of  genuine  blockade,  (a  mere  and  strict  mili- 
ary measure)  continues  to  be  substituted  by  ever  varying  and 
arbitrary  commercial  interdictions  ;  measures  levelled  attlic 
neutrals,  preposterously  and  unlawfully  called  by  the  name  of 

blockades,  acconipaiaea  oyan  iiimiuiaiaiVviia»»  v 

of  ship  and  cargo,  by  the  seduction  and  compulsion  ot  many 
of  our  harrassed  seamen  to  enter  their  ships  of  war,  ana  dv 


(     05    ) 

the  subjection  of  the  rest  to  insult,  injury  and  final  im- 
pressment. 

The  practice  of  issuing  orders  of  council,  working  sus- 
pensions and  abrogations  of  tiic  law  of  nations,  in  the  Brit- 
l^h  prize  courts,  and  inducing;  like  abuses  and  retaliations 
by  the  enemies  of  Britain,  has  been  continued  through 
fourteen  years.  In  the  year  1800,  the  section  of  the  Brit- 
ish statue  of  the  17th  of  June,  1793,  indemnifying  their 
ministers  and  navy  officers  for  all  infractions  of  neutral 
rights,  for  which  they  can  exhibit  an  order  of  the  king  in 
council,  was  deliberately  re-enacted.  To  confiscate  the 
property  of  a  proud  subject  of  the  British  king,  requires 
a  joint  act  of  her  three  estates  in  parliament.  To  confiscate 
the  property  of  a  degraded  neutral, requires  only  an  order  of 
the  Britisii  crown  !  !  !  To  such  a  pass  has  the  ^British 
government  at  length  arrived  on  this  subject,  that  prepos- 
terously demanding  of  us  a  right  "  to  profit  of  their  own 
wrong,"  they  extravagantly  avowed  in  December  last, 
that  they  were  to  be  considered,  as  holding  in  their  own 
discretion  the  future  issuing  of  these  orders  of  council,  to 
meet  their  enemies  avowed  retaliation  of  them  :  and  this 
too,  so  as  arbitrarily  to  suspend  their  own  engagements 
only,  in  a  treaty  intended  to  correct  their  executive  usur- 
pation of  the  legislation  of  the  seas. 

The  long  contin-  tion,  the  repetitions  and  extensions 
of  the  British  violations  of  our  ncUtral  flag,  persons,  pro- 
pcrty  and  rights,  and  the  excesses  which  have  marked 
them  since  she  attained  her  present  naval  superiority,  with 
the  false  positions,  fatal  to  the  trade  and  peace  of  the  world, 
that  her  naval  superiority  and  commercial  monopoly  are 
necessary  to  be  maintained  and  must  be  used  to  her  own 
illegitimate  advantage,  ought  to  be  considered  with  calm- 
ness, wisdom  and  firmness  by  the  United  States. 

The  injuries  inflicted  and  the  influence  exercised  in  the 
last  sixteen  years  upon  the  neutral  states  form  a  topic  of 
the  most  interesting  consideration  at  this  crisis.  It  is  our 
duty  to  examine  into  their  origin  and  causes,  without 
warmth.  We  have  recently  seen  a  decree  called  a  block- 
ade  from  the  emperour  of  France  m.ore  extensive  thar-  an*'" 
single  act  of  a  belligerent  power,  since  the  commence- 
ment of  the  French  Revolution.  It  is  however,  to  be 
carefully  observed,  that,  the  idea  of  being  considered  as 
accomplices  in  that  plan  of  monopoly,  which  the   Empc- 


lit 


;l 

I  i 


(     6G     ) 

ror  charges  on  England,  is  strictly  confined  to  the   neu- 
trals of  the  continent  of  Europe. — This  strong  and  explic- 
it French  denunciation  is  couched  in  tcrms>   which   can- 
not, by  the  most  forced  construction,   be  deemed  to  in- 
clude the  United  States.      It  will  be  remembered   also, 
that  the  apparently  extreme  idea,  that  "  to  be  neuter^^   in 
tiiese  modern  wars,,  is  in  f.ict  to  be  "  an  accomplice,"  was 
first  luihappily  proclaimed  by  the  government   of  Great 
Britain.     We  have  already  seen  that  in  the  year  1793,  the 
l>riiish  minister  at  Genoa  declared,  in  form  and  in   writ- 
ing, to  that  government,  in  terms  of  absolute   generality, 
th^i^t  to  be  neutral,  in  the  pending  contest  of  England  with 
France,  was  to  be  "  an  accuiuplicc''^  of  the  latvcr.       This 
unibrUinatc  and  excessive  precedent,  set  by  Great  Britain 
to  France,  Mas  couched  in  language,  which  included  every 
neutral  country,  and,  of  course,  actually   and  fully  com- 
prehended us.'    It  is  a  matter  therefore  of  no  small  im- 
j)ortance  in  an  accurate  and  candid  estimate,  that  in  the 
French  Decree,  of  1806,  actually  retaliating  that  of  Eng- 
land  of  1793  in  regard  to  "•  neutral  accomplices  oj  bellige- 
rents,''^ France  has  been  as  correct  towards  us,  as  Great 
Britain   was  incorrect   in   her  unwarrantable  precedent. 
Another  important  point  of  comparison,    as  to  the  treat- 
ment we  now  receive  from  the  two  countries,  merits  our 
temperate,  candid  and  serious   consideration.—  It  is  use- 
less and  injurious  to  admit  passion. — Tliough  France  has 
issued  her  decree  of  blockade  of  the  2 1st  of  November, 
we  iiud  that  the  only  connnunications  we  have  from  their 
government,  and  from  our  minister  at  diat  court,  hold  out 
to  us  positive  assurances  that  our  convention  (freely  and 
fairly  made  by  France  and  l^y  us)  is  to  govern,  and  not 
the  subsequent  Decree  of  last  November,  made  by  France- 
alone,  and  Ikt  cruisers  in  the  Atlantic  have  acted  accord- 
ingly.    But  England,  having  formed  a  treaty  with  us  on 
the  31st  of  Dcv  ember,  holds  out  to  us  in  a  rider  made 
by  herself  alone,  and  in  the  speeches  of  her  minister  in 
Pailiamcjit  and  in  her  January  order  of  council,  that  neith- 
er, the  treaty  as  made,  nor  the  law  of  nations  is  to  govern. 
This  conduct  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  they  knew 
of  the  French  decree  before  the  treaty  was  framed.* 
It  is  a  most  unfortunate  and  indeed  an  unreasonable 

*  Since  Uie  first  and  secoi'd  publicnlions  of  this  cy.aniinutinn,  Uic  con- 
clu..t  oi  Kni'Ij.nd  towurds  Dciauuikj-Nt.  huvc  Icdl.  iv.ncc  inio  more  injunes. 


(     67     ) 

thing,  that  Great  Britain  should  claim  to  consider,  that 
retal'tatio?i  for  the  spoliation  and  illegitimate  treatment  of 
neutrals,  is  to  be  made  iwiv  by  her.  8he  claims  against 
usy  a  right  to  **  retaliate^'  the  uses,  which  France  had  pro- 
posed to  make  of  neutrals,  although  England  has  been  ma- 
king those  uses  of  all  the  neutrals  in  every  year  since  1792! 
It  would  not  be  incumbent  on  us  to  interfere  in  this  dis- 
cussion, but  that  England  claims  a  right  to  use  the  French 
act  to  justify  repetitions  of  the  vast  and  numerous  injuries 
she  has  done  us,  from  year  to  yi  ir,  in  and  since  1792. — 
Great  Britain  really  knov)sfuU  well  that  she  has  committed 
the  train  of  injuries :  and  the  government  and  people  of  A- 
merica  know  it  as  well. — Let  her  honestly  and  prudently 
examine  her  proclamation  and  executive  orders  in  1 792, 
the  remonstrances  of  M.  Chaiivelin  under  the  direction  of 
M.  Talleyrand,  in  that  year,  and  the  act  of  Parliament  to 
indemnify  her  ministers.  Let  her  read  once  more  her  own 
great  leading  anti-neutral  treaty  of  March  1793,  with  Rus- 
sia, and  the  similar  treaties  into  which  other  powers  were 
forced  and  induced  by  her  :  Let  her  candidly  remember 
too,  her  orders  of  June,  and  her  secret  orders  of  November 
1793,  and  the  conferences  and  correspondence  of  Mr.  T, 
Pinckney  and  Lord  Grenville  on  those  painful  subjects  ; 
with  the  calm,  comprehensive  and  unanswerable  represen- 
tation of  the  whole,  in  the  papers  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  then 
our  secretary  of  state,  laid  bciore  Con^-icss  by  President 
IVashingt&n  in  1794  :  Let  Great  Britain  impartially  exam- 
ine her  orders  of  council  of  January  1794,  May  1795,  Jan- 
uary  1798,  and  at  other  times,  with  the  illegitimate  proc- 
lamation of  Admiral  Nelson  off  Cadiz  in  1797,  and  similar 
acts  of  her  other  admirals,  announcing  t!ie  determined  an- . 
nihilation  of  anation^s  whole  trade,  under  the  preposterous 
affectation  of  legitimate  blockades.  As  all  these  were  pri- 
or  to  the  French  decree  of  November  1806,  a?id  were  the 
real  and  indisputable  causes  of  that  decree,  to  talk  to  us  of 
our  duty  to  oppose  that  decree,  is  to  remind  us,  in  the 
tnost  forcible  manner,  of  the  duty  we  are  under  to  opposo 
and  to  procure  the  abrogation  of  the  British  precedents, 
which  have  truly  brought  it  on  the  world. 

Let  Great  Britain  hasten  to  enable  the  neutral  world  to 
take  just  and  effectual  measures  for  the  abrogation  of  the 
late  French  decree,  by  worthily  and  wisely  treading  back 
tlic  unlawful  steps,  with  which  she  lias  unliappily  advanced 


(     68     ) 


I  ' 


ill' 


ir 


111 


during  more  thr  i  fifteen  years,  in  her  cTiversified  and  ruin- 
ous  violations  of  neutral  rights.  It  is  in  vain  for  her  or 
for  us  to  deceive  ourselves.  Nothing  hut  a  return  to  jus- 
tice under  the  laiv  of  nations,  can  preserve  harmony,  serve 
her  real  interests,  or  secure  inviolable  those  of  the  United 
States.  We  have  proved  too  clearly,  by  our  lon^^  and  pa- 
tient sufferance  of  vast,  numerous,  and  repeated  injuries, 
that  we  have  not  been  hasty  to  seek,  or  hazard  discord. — 
Things  are  at  last  arrived  at  the  most  serious  lengths. — 
'Tis  unvv^ise  to  hope  that  matters  can  happily  remain  as 
they  are,  or  run  longer  on  as  they  have  done  since  1792. 
Weighty — solemn — awful  circumstances,  at  home  and 
abroad,  have  taken  place,  deeply  affecting  them  and  us. 
New  events  of  equal  magnitude  seem  likely  to  arise.  The 
times  are  portentous.  If  Great  Britain  is  not  determined 
to  add  to  the  evils,  which  press  or  menace  her,  the  just 
loss  of  our  good- will  and  an  inevitable  privation  of  much 
orall  of  our  custom  and  trade,  she  will  not  persevere  in  Dio- 
lating  the  legitimate  protection,  ivhich  our  Jlag  should  gi'oe 
to  all  persons^  but  military  enemies^  and  which  it  should 
completely  afford  to  neutral  property,  in  every  branch  of 
lawful  commerce.  The  United  States  will  solemnly,  sin- 
cerely and  truly  deprecate  a  recurrence  to  the  system  of 
counter  measures,  whereof  our  government  has  been  forced 
to  display  the  principles.  But  the  government  and  people 
of  Great  Britain  cannot  fail  to  collect  from  the  history  of 
the  two  last  sessions  of  our  national  Legislature  ;  from  the 
temperate  and  frank  declarations  of  our  chief  magistrate, 
and  from  the  conferences  of  our  respective  ministers  here 
and  in  Europe,  that  America  is  really,  justly  and  deeply 
concerned  for  her  rights  and  interests,  and  for  her  neutral 
character  and  her  neutral  obligations.  It  is  time  for  us  to 
end  the  real  war  upon  our  citizens,  our  property  and  our 
flag,  which  Great  Britain  has  long  waged.  'J'he  practice 
has  been  deeply  injurious  to  the  neutrals  :  The  example, 
if  continued,  may  become  ruinous. 


No.  XV. 

The  dispositions  of  Great  Britain  towards  the  United 
States  of  America,  after  the  peace  of  1783  and  before  the 
wars  produced  by  the  French  revolutions,  were  not  mark- 
ed by  symptoms  of  kindness  or  respect.  They  did  not 
send  a  minister  hither  tiU  the  year  1791,  though  we  sent 


Pamphlet 


(     69     ) 

one  to  London,  and  though  we  joined  in  territory  and  had 
very  extensive  connections.  Their  most  distinguished 
commercial  writer,  a  member  of  the  Irish  lords  and  Brit- 
ish commons,*  countenanced  the  idea,  that  it  was  not  the 
interest  of  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe  to  relieve  us 
from  the  depredations  of  the  piraticle  states  of  Barbary. 
For  his  zealous,  the  erroneous,  anti-American  work,  he 
has  been  long  since  rewarded  by  a  British  peerage  and  an 
office  of  profit.  It  has  been  publicly  stated  in  a  pamphlet 
written  by  a  confidential  member  of  our  administration, f 
that  the  British  government  meditated  the  dismember- 
ment  of  our  country  at  the  Ohio.  In  1786,  they  agreed 
with  France,  that  free  ships  should  make  free  goods.  But 
in  1791,  the  report  of  their  privy  council  particularly  ad- 
vised, that  such  an  agreement  should  not  be  made  with  us  : 
and  they  have  conducted  their  treaties  in  the  most  decided 
and  rigid  conformity  with  that  partial  recommendation. 
Other  circumstances  of  a  more  offensive  nature  might  be 
stated,  but  it  is  not  wished  to  prevent  a  dispassionate  con- 
sideration of  existing  circumstances. 

Our  object  in  these  notices  is  to  shew  to  Great  Britain 
herself,  that  early  causes  of  just  dissatisfaction  have  really 
occurred  on  her  part. 

After  their  war  with  France  had  taken  place.  Great  Bri- 
tain  distinguished  us,  beyond  other  neutrals,  by  many  em- 
phatic expressioni  of  an  adversary  character,  by  ii  series  of 
interpositions  in  our  affairs,  by  attempts  to  commit  our 
neutrality  with  the  other  belligerents,  and  by  establishing 
principles,  which  bore  upon  our  interests  more  than  upon 
those  of  any  other  neutral.  She  established  a  press  in  the 
hands  of  one  of  her  own  subjects,  in  the  bosom  of  our  na- 
tional government,  to  depreciate  the  principles  of  our  in- 
stitutions and  to  oppose  the  rights  of  our  neutrality  ;  and 
her  public  editor  seduced  the  printer  of  our  goveniment 
gazette  to  the  views  and  principles  of  Great  Britain. f  For 
ihese  services  the  typographical  agent  of  England  receiv- 
ed public  honors  on  the  floor  of  their  legislature  from  the 
mouths  of  their  ministry.  The  great  Premier  of  England 
declared  in  his  place  in  the  house  of  commons,  that  "  the 
inventors  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people 

*  Lord  Slieffield  in  liis  commerce  of  the  United  States. 

t  'I'lie  lale  A.  Hamillon,  F,sq.  in  his  pamphlet  on  the  treaty  of  1794. 

I    -f-v   Ivuvijv/t  i-fy«:j    \V  tualiTj  JiBtJ.  lO  nt  J.iai2i;ii.uii,  i:.3l£.  III  UClCiiCC 

pf  President  Adjims. 


Itll 


II 


(     70     ) 

were  the  enemies  of  their  kind."     In  pursuance  of  the  as- 
sertion  in  their  report  of  council  of  1791,   that  they  had 
formed  a  party  m  our  senate,  they  carried  into  execution 
their  hopes  of  corruption,  as  was  proved  in  the  cose  of  an 
expelled  member  of  that  body.  The  same  British  minister, 
who  was  their  agent  in  this  corrupt  attempt  to  commit  our 
neutrality,   communicated  to  their  American  provinces, 
that  he  had  drawn  us  into  an  arrangement  on  the  subject 
of  St.  Domingo,  which  might  be  strongly  hoped  to  im- 
plicate us  in  a  war  with  France.   British' impressments  of 
native  neutral  sailors,  on  board  of  neutral  ships,  were  con- 
fined to  the  citizens  and  flag  of  the  United  States. — Tiie 
impressment  of  Britons  and  other  aliens,  sailing  as  seamen 
and  passengers  in  neutral  vessels,  was  committed  only  on 
board  of  our  ships — To  our  neutral  minister  alone  did  a 
British  secretary  of  state  presume  to  insinuate*  that  the 
lionest  and  reasonable  complainers  against  the  British  or- 
ders of  council  [such  as  we  have  seen  they  are]  were  the 
intemperate  enemies  of  America  and  lingland.  —On  our 
immense  legalized  traffic  in  wood,  grain,  vegetables,  mo- 
lasses, taffia,  &c.  &.C.  with  the  French  colonies,  did  the 
prohibitions  of  the  British  order  of  council  of  November 
1793,  impose  ruin — a  traffic  established  by  the  French 
in  peace  according  to  munidpal  and  public  law-  -and  des- 
troyed by  the  British  in  war  against  all  law. — Upon  the 
Americans,  only,  has  been  imposed  that  refinement  in  the 
business  of  neutral  spoliations,  by  which  two  several  and 
distinct  voyages  to  and  from  the  United  States,  have  been 
pretended  to  be   made  one,  in  judicial  form,  in  order  to 
work  the  confiscation  of  our  ships  and  cargoes,  and  to  de- 
stroy our  commerce.- -In  our  case  alone  has  the   British 
inconsistency  occurred  of  taking  the  benefit  of  our  new 
war  trade  to  support  their  colonial  agriculture,  while  the 
like  trade  in  support  of  their  enemies  colonial  agriculture 
is  adjudged  to  be  cause  of  ruinous  condemnations  of  our 
vessels  and  cargoes.     We  refrain  cheerfully  from  a  fur- 
Ihcr  exemplification  of  the  peculiar  injuries  to  this  neutral 
country — this  useful  country,  which  has  been  the  most 
abundant  source  of  the  materials  of  British  manufactures 
and  of  British  necessaries,  ind  the  greatest  purchaser  o 
her  redundant  commodities. 

The  rescinding  of  the  dangerous  articles  in  the  Russian, 
•  Loi-d  GreiiviUe  to  Mr.  T.  Pinckiiey. 


m 


Pamphlet 
Binder 


im 


(     71     ) 

Prussian  and  Spanish  treaties  of  1793,  or  the  candid  aban- 
donment of  the  principle,  if  the  British  nation  should  find 
herself  at  war  vv  ith  those  three  powers ;  the  repeal  of  the 
35th  section  of  the  act  of  the  17th  June  1793,  or  of  the 
similar  section  of  1803,  and  a  frank  declaration  against  the 
principle  of  them  ;  an  abandonment  of  the  pretension  to 
make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  trial  and  condemnation 
of  neutral  property  ;  the  relinquishment  of  the  practice  ar»d 
pretension  of  impressment  in  our  vessels  ;  satisfactory  de- 
clarations upon  the  subject  of  blockades,  and  a  general  re- 
storation of  its  proper  sanctity  to  the  law  of  nations,  would 
revive  good  humor  between  the  two  countries,  and  ©pen 
before  each  the  bright  prospect  of  mutual  happiness.  We 
expect  and  desire  nothing  beyond  the  duties,  which  jus- 
tice requires  of  Great  Britain.  Some  have  alleged,  that 
self  preservation  forbids  her  present  compliance.  This  is 
a  recent  pretence,  and  cannot  be  considered  as  just  or  true, 
or  admissible.  No  light  or  imaginary  obligations  impel 
our  government  to  preserve  to  us,  their  constituents,  our 
personal  rights  by  sea  and  land,  the  rights  of  our  flag,  our 
rights  of  property,  the  duties  and  rights  of  neutrality,  and 
the  many  blessmgs  of  the  law  of  nations.  The  impres- 
sive facts  in  the  preceding  pages  will  perfectly  convince 
even  candid  Englishmen,  that  Great  Britain,  has  not  claims 
>-.Don  our  gi-atitude,  sufficient  to  induce  us  to  become 
•*  knights  errant"  against  the  combined  powers  of  the  Euro- 
pean continent.  No  :  we  are  ready  to  walk  with  England 
in  the  paths  of  justice,  amity,  and  mutual  benefit.  But, 
if  she  continues  to  deviate,  we  may  righteously  cultivate 
our  separate  interests. — We  may  continue  her  legalized 
exclusion  from  a  portion  of  our  trade — We  may  extend 
the  principle  further.  We  may  include  persons,  and  pri- 
vate ships  as  well  as  manufactures  and  public  ships,  in  our 
reluctant  prohibitions. — We  may  select  more  objects  of 
exclusion  than  we  have  yet  chosen  ;  or  we  may  occupy  the 
whole  field  of  painful  interdiction. — Unjustly  wounded  in 
our  external  commerce,  we  may  recur  with  wisdom  and 
energy  to  the  invulnerable  and  immense  object  of  home 
manufactures.  Obstructed  in  the  foreign  sales  of  our  ag- 
ricultural productions  by  English  orders  of  council  and 
pretended  blockades,  we  may  create  for  these  productions 
at  home  a  great,  cenaia  and  steady  market,  bv  higlitr  du- 
ties, encreasing  exclusions  of  British  manufactures.     It  is-. 


'''^fr.. 


(     ^2    ) 


a  sp«n4  maxim  in  oiir  political'  leconotiBy,  that  'so  far  ai 
'wc  ccmnot  tracU  abroad,  ws  skaH  certainly  manufacture  at 
home*    Great  Britain  may  cherish  opposite  opinins,  but 
a  very  Uttle  time  of  separatiiaa^jiagrticularly  in  war,  would 
convince  her  of  a  fatal  error.     Those  among  us,  who  are 
not  disposed  to  promote  manufactures,  will  perceive  the 
necessity  for  tbeir  aid  to  support  our  agriculture^  which 
is  plainly  created  Uy  the  naval  irregularities  of  Gleat 
Britain,  and  by  her  endeavoucs  to  monopolize  external 
commerce.    In  the  \y  ;  finning  of  the  recent  wars,  she  madq 
a  combination  to  accomplish  naval  dictation ;  but  having 
quai^elled  with  Spain,  and  we  may  add  perhaps  with  Rus- 
sia, she  now  aims  at  the  monarchy  of  the  Ocean.     As  she 
lessens  industry  jind  activity  at  sea  on  the  part  of  the  neu- 
trals,  slie  will  increase  both  on  shor*.     Every  maritime 
enemy  of  England  is  made  to  her  a  somxe  of  profit,  for  she 
captures,  without  law,  neutrals  trading  with  them,  and  af- 
fects to  legalize  |he  trade  of  her  own  subjects  with  the 
same  enemies.     Neuirals  are  forbidden  to  trade  between 
the,p<>its  of  adversary  Belligerents,  while  by  a  strange  per- 
version of  law  and  riglit,  those  adversary  belligerents,  trade 
with  each  otlier.     (Sir  neutral  ships  are  adjudged,  in  Rri^ 
tish  courts,  not  to  make  free  goods,  while  the  belligerent 
tihips  of  Englsnd  Ciirry  as  free  goods,  the  riches  of  Mexica 
and  the  wealdi  of  Peru  for  their  Spanish  enemies.     The 
peace-loving  nations  are  to  be  deprived  of  the  trade  of  one 
belligerent  by  all  the  means  in  the  power  of  England,* 
who  is  thus  to  monopolize  the  commerce  of  lier  adversa- 
ries, at  the  expense  of  the  rights  of  all  friendly  ne'Jrals, 
Thus  war  is  made  her  trade  :  and  her  trade  is  war.     I'he 
spoils  of  neutrals  fill  her  ware  houses,  while  she  incarcer- 
ates their  bodies  in  her  i^mting  castles.     She  •  -  :.-s  their 
persons  and  property  as  the  rich  fruit  of  bloodies-:!  victo- 
ries over  her  unarmed  friends.     Permitted,  in  pe;.'U.,  by  an 
unthinking  ivor/d,  to  lay  on  their  commerce  with  h^r  do- 
minions every  possible  restriction,  so  as  to  incre-  sc  her 
private  ships  and  seamen,  she  has  made  for  herself  out  of 
those  means,  that  naval  superiority,  which  has  so  much 
injured  the  neutral  states,  in  the  wars  produced  by  the 
French  revolutions.^    The  painful  recollection  of  past  in- 
juries — the  solemn  imminence  of  incalculable  dangers — 

£iiiu  isic  OT-.Tiui  piwOj;ci;i  o*    u  rJiinOUS  SUOSillUtlvi'!    v"   fO-Ojer 

for  right,  re^june  a  stand.  JURISCOL A . 

*See  litT  tmitios  with" Russia,  5;c.  March,  1793. 


